Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS

BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

WEST LOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

LAKE OF MENTEITH FISHERIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered.

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1969.—[Mr. Sharples.]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Address for Return,
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1969.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motorways (Speed Limits)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy concerning maximum speed limits on motorways.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on speed limits on motorways.

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has regarding speed limits on motorways.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for changing the speed limit on motorways.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Peyton): I am considering this and intend to make a statement in due course.

Sir G. Nabarro: I wish, first, to express my pleasure at being the first from this side of the House to congratulate my right hon. Friend on this, the first occasion on which he is answering my Questions.
Has the Minister any evidence, in the period since the 70 m.p.h. limit was imposed on motorways, to show whether it is tending to increase or decrease the number of accidents on motorways and whether the speed limit is becoming increasingly or decreasingly observed by motorists?

Mr. Peyton: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks and I look forward to answering many other Questions from him in due course.
Such evidence as I have leads me to believe that there is an increasing tendency, which I regret, to disregard the limit.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his undue haste in rushing into print on this matter, particularly since more evidence is required? Would he agree that there is some feeling about his lack of objectivity regarding any changes in the speed limit, awaiting, as it must, the further investigation which only now he is beginning to understand is necessary?

Mr. Peyton: I have only said that I am quite willing to look at this matter. That I intend to do. I will do so with an open mind and without undue haste.

Mr. Ogden: I, too, offer my congratulations to the Minister. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I am as surprised to see him in his present office as he probably is to be in it.
The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said that he will introduce a limited experiment in one area of motorway. Is this report correct, and as it was apparently based on part of the Green Paper, is it his intention to bring forward a White Paper on the larger and more important proposals?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I hope that he will take it that my surprise is an indication of my modesty.
So far I have merely said that I am prepared to look at the possibility of a limited experiment. I have not committed myself in any way. Indeed, it would have been wrong for me to have done so.

Mr. Mulley: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having taken time to consider an important decision of this kind. I hope he will bear very much in mind the unfortunate trend of road accident figures, the latest of which were published yesterday. Will he take advice from the Road Research Laboratory and other bodies and make as much information as possible available to the House before reaching a decision?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful suggestion. I value very much the

advice of the Road Research Laboratory. I will see that this information is made available to as many hon. Members as are interested.

Motorways (Toll Charges)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on toll charges for motorways as crossing the Forth and Severn Road Bridges.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Michael Heseltine): No change in the practice of making toll charges at the Severn Bridge is contemplated. The Forth Bridge is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have not yet had time to consider the pros and cons of imposing tolls on motorways generally.

Sir G. Nabarro: I also congratulate my hon. Friend. Would he have regard to the fact that the charging of tolls on both the Forth Bridge and the Severn Bridge has been a highly successful exercise, both rewarding and lucrative, without causing delays to motorists and drivers of other vehicles? Would he consider earnestly a more widespread application of this important principle in order to promote and foster the building of new motorways?

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The use of tolls for specific projects such as the two bridges has long been policy, but the further use of tolls for the building of roads in general must be subject to the review which my right hon. Friend is now undertaking.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Parliamentary Secretary has just said that there is no intention of increasing the tolls on the two bridges mentioned by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Can he give an assurance that that intention will apply also to the Tyne Tunnel, and that in future there will be no increase in the tolls there?

Mr. Heseltine: It would be helpful if the hon. Member were to put down a question specifically about the Tyne Tunnel, as it is not dealt with in the original Question.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport when he will make a decision on the proposals to build a Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Peyton: I received today new proposals concerning a Channel Tunnel. They were made by a combination of members of all three of the international groups interested in the project; and I understand that they are also being submitted to the French Government. The proposals cover the conduct and financing of final studies, and the construction of the tunnel should this subsequently be decided upon. Before reaching any decision I shall wish to examine the proposals carefully in consultation with the appropriate French Minister.

Mr. Sheldon: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give any information about the financial arrangements? Can he say what further information will be given to the House, particularly as the 1963 White Paper is now seven years out of date, which, in transport, is another age? Will he consider publishing another White Paper giving the exact position as it is today?

Mr. Peyton: I have not yet had seven weeks in which to bring that seven-year-old White Paper up to date, but I can appreciate the desire to have the current information as soon as possible. The financial matters are still subject to negotiation, and I cannot comment on them at this stage.

Mr. Costain: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he appreciate the effect that this delay in making a decision is having on my constituency? Will he further agree that it is necessary to have a proper economic survey in respect of the tunnel before it goes ahead?

Mr. Peyton: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has just said.

A1, South Mimms-Hatfield

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport how the result of the traffic

survey of the North-West London area affected the decision to dual the five-mile single-carriageway stretch of the A1 between South Mimms and Hatfield.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The survey confirmed the need for dual three-lane construction for this road and indicated the design of junctions necessary.

Sir R. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the land for this road has been available, I think, ever since the original road was built? What, other than, possibly, finance, can have stood in the way of dualling?

Mr. Heseltine: Large numbers of detailed and very complex studies have to be taken into account, and analysis necessarily takes a long time to produce the sort of decisions necessary.

London Bus and Underground Fares

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the proposals of the Greater London Council to increase bus and underground fares on the services operated by the London Transport Executive.

Mr. Peyton: During the autumn, Sir.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister's recent statement about the need for price restraint in the public sector apply to London Transport as well as to other publicly-owned industries? If it does, will the Minister be able to do anything to protect Londoners from the excessive fare increases proposed by the Conservative-controlled G.L.C.?

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend's statements have a very wide bearing, but this matter cannot really be changed. The reference was made in June by the previous Administration, and I understand that fares are going up in the middle of August.

Mr. Lipton: But does the right hon. Gentleman accept with equanimity the monstrous proposals that there should be a 1s. minimum fare on the London Underground system?

Mr. Peyton: With great respect, there are quite a number of legacies which I


have to accept, though not with equanimity.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There has been a change in recent weeks, as the Minister probably knows. Since 18th June we have had a Government which have said that they will control the prices charged by the nationalised industries. Has he not now an opportunity to set an example by controlling the fares charged to London Transport commuters at their level prior to his coming to power?

Mr. Peyton: I am afraid that I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in his advocacy of yet another subsidy. What I can do is to remind him of what my right hon. Friends have said, which is that it is quite impossible to contain the damaging results of Labour Government overnight.

Bus Services (Concessionary Fares)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Transport if he will amend the provisions in the Transport Act that give local authorities the right to grant concessionary fares to retirement pensioners.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation compelling local authorities to introduce concessionary fares for the elderly on municipal bus services.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a need to unite the nation on this issue? Does he not further agree that the present permissive right of local authorities to give concessionary fares to pensioners should be made mandatory on every local authority?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has the power to provide a general formula upon which such concessionary fares should be produced, and he has circulated details of this to the interested parties. We are now considering their representations, but do not believe that it is necessary to impose a standard for whether or not these services should be taken up by local authorities. It is entirely a matter for the local authorities themselves.

Mr. Judd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in cities undergoing a

great deal of redevelopment elderly citizens are faced with heavy fares bills in order to keep in contact with their old friends and families? Does he not also appreciate that to those who listened to the new Government's claim to be concerned with concentrating resources on areas of greatest need there is no excuse for the Government delaying any longer in introducing comprehensive legislation to cover the country as a whole?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will appreciate that the previous Government did not think it necessary to concentrate resources in this direction. It is our view that local authorities will be aware of the sort of local pressures to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and have all the powers to take the action they wish.

Sir R. Cary: Whilst not wishing to deny the good intentions behind the Questions on the Order Paper, may I remind my hon. Friend of the great range of concessionary fares given by operators throughout the country to the blind, the disabled, to children and to scholars? The total is enormous.

Mr. Heseltine: I am absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that that is the case, and it is precisely because we want this flexibility for local authorities to do what is necessary for their local people that we allow this flexibility to remain.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the Minister confirm that powers already exist for local authorities, if they have the will, to introduce concessionary fares for qualified people? He referred to a formula: will he state that there is no reason at all for any local authority to use the issuing of the formula as an excuse for not introducing travel concessions?

Mr. Heseltine: There is absolutely no need at all.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not also self-evident that concessions like this can unfairly benefit one group of old-age pensioners at the expense of another? If there is anything available for old-age pensioners, is it not far better that it should be available in cash and not in kind?

Mr. Heseltine: There is often a need, I think, in local authority areas for


specially based concessions, and it is correct to allow the local authorities to have the special concession-making powers provided in existing legislation.

Ports

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to effect improvements in harbours in respect of maintenance, management, and employment, and so as to ensure integrated planning and development of port facilities of Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to modernise the ports in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for the reorganisation of the ports.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Minister of Transport what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the relations between central Government and the bodies responsible for the administration of the ports.

Mr. Peyton: As I explained during the debate yesterday on the Harbours (Amendment) Bill, I would wish to complete my study of the problems of the ports before making any further statement.

Mr. Murray: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out no prospect for early modernisation of our ports or for the implementation of schemes of rationalisation such as the integration of the Forth-Clyde Ports Authority? Are we to have no early action?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member has, I think, misread my answer.

Mr. Berry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision not to go ahead with nationalisation of the ports will be welcomed by the public at large, particularly as it was to cost £70 million? Is he aware that among the smaller ports this will remove an element of uncertainty and that they will be particularly pleased about that?

Mr. Peyton: I think my hon. Friend shows his usual discernment.

Mr. Edwards: Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans for changing the administration of Milford Haven?

Mr. Peyton: I would rather not be tempted into discussing any particular port today.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this delay in presenting his proposals for ports reorganisation is causing widespread concern and unnecessary anxiety to management and staff and this in turn is affecting industrial relations within the industry?

Mr. Peyton: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not present in the last Parliament, but perhaps he has ignored the fact that quite a long time has been spent without this problem being solved. Certainly it is not one which has become a problem overnight.

Railway Fares

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a general direction to British Railways to review their fares structure so as to ensure that passengers are treated on the same basis whichever part of the United Kingdom they buy tickets in.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it costs £8 to travel from Glasgow to Birmingham but only £6 to travel from Birmingham to Glasgow? So it is much more expensive to get out of Scotland than to get into it. During the course of the last few weeks his hon. Friends have been suggesting that the Minister would take power to get rid of this peculiar type of anomaly.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will remember that this power arose out of a recommendation from the Prices and Incomes Board, which was accepted by the previous Administration, to give the British Railways Board flexibility so that they could take advantage of market conditions in fixing their prices.

A30, Exeter-Okehampton

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport when the proposed improvements will start on the A30 between Exeter and Okehampton, Devon.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Exeter-Okehampton improvement is in the early stages of preparation. It is not yet possible to say when construction will start.

Mr. Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend realise the growing anger in the West Country about the A30, which is a disgrace, and that we need to see these improvements started immediately?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will, I think, realise that, perhaps as much as he does, I appreciate the need for developing the A30. It is part of the overall strategic concept of making the A30 a dual carriageway route the whole way from Exeter to Penzance.

Road Transport, Exeter-North Devon

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to improve road transport facilities between Exeter and North Devon and, in particular, Bideford.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is intended that the trunk road between Landkey Town and Venn should be improved and that a contribution will be made towards the cost of a relief road at Barnstaple.

Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is not the real answer and that what is needed is better communications between Exeter and North Devon, particularly as this is a development area? Will he look into the matter to ensure that both road and rail provide a satisfactory system for people who live in the area?

Mr. Heseltine: The provision, rail services is in the first instance the responsibility of the British Railways Board. The roads which link Exeter and Bideford are essentially local authority roads, and schemes necessary would in the first instance come from the local authorities. I believe they have it in mind to spend half a million pounds by the middle seventies on this work.

Western Approach Road, South Shields

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Transport what additional grant his Department is offering to South Shields Corporation towards the cost of the Western Approach road project, work on

which was originally scheduled to commence this year.

Mr. Peyton: None, Sir. The standard grant of 75 per cent. for principal road schemes such as this will be available.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While I recognise that that answer confirms the decision reached by the Minister's predecessor, will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever possible to encourage the Conservative local council to get ahead with this scheme, which is so important for developing new industry, in view of the fact that the council turned down a project which had previously been agreed upon?

Mr. Peyton: I welcome the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question rather more than the second part, but, of course, an enlightened Conservative council can rely on my support and encouragement.

Burst Water-mains

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the frequency of burst water-mains in the London area and elsewhere, he will take steps to limit the loads carried by commercial vehicles.

Mr. Peyton: I have no evidence that the laden weight of commercial vehicles is a significant factor in causing burst water-mains.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that our roads were never constructed to bear loads of 40–50 tons or more? By way of confirming the point I am trying to make, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was another burst water-main in Stoke Newington this morning?

Mr. Peyton: I very much regret the occurrence to which the hon. Member has just referred. I should remind him that what counts here is not so much the total laden weight of a vehicle but the maximum permitted axle weight.

Goods Vehicles (Overnight Parking)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Transport how soon he expects to be able to complete the consideration he


is giving, with the Greater London Council, to plans for dealing with the nuisance of the parking overnight of large lorries in private residential roads in Ilford and elsewhere.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Traffic regulation in the London area is a matter for the Greater London Council. But I welcome the experimental scheme the council is preparing to ban overnight parking of goods vehicles from specific streets in a limited zone. The scheme will be of particular interest because of my Department's special study on lorry parking problems in the North-West of England.

Mr. Iremonger: What we want to know is how soon this will have an effect in Ilford? Can the Minister say what is the root cause of this problem, which has developed in the last year or so?

Mr. Heseltine: The G.L.C. hopes to have the scheme in operation by the end of this year. To discover the general root cause is, of course, the purpose of the studies to which I have referred.

Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the London Borough of Ealing the parking of vehicles, particularly heavy vehicles, is a growing menace and is having a deleterious effect on the standard of living? Is he aware that many vehicles, particularly those passing near Western Avenue, are apt to avoid that motorway and pass through residential areas, where they cause grave discomfort to property? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Not too long for my constituents. Would he not agree that there ought to be a joint conference of representatives of his Department, the G.L.C. and London boroughs to examine this problem?

Mr. Heseltine: I think the hon. Member will welcome the G.L.C.'s determination to get this scheme into operation by the end of this year. Perhaps it might be welcome if he would wait until my Department publishes its North-West study, which it hopes to do by the end of this year.

Street Parking, Bridport

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now

considered the report on the public inquiry into street parking in Bridport.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend now knows, we have decided to introduce certain restrictions for an experimental period of six months.

Mr. Digby: I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the decision. Is he aware that, although this may assist through traffic to Devon and Cornwall, it will inflict considerable hardship on the inhabitants of Bridport and the surrounding countryside who have to shop there because car parking facilities are inadequate?

Mr. Heseltine: Yes, I am well aware of this. One of the principal reasons why it has been made an experimental scheme is that there will be an opportunity to object before any provisions are made permanent.

Roads (Extra Lanes)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will refuse sanction to all major road improvement schemes which do not provide at least one extra lane, in view of the increasing volume of traffic and of the fact that schemes to cost £7 million were started last year without materially helping traffic flow.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. There are many schemes for the widening and re-alignment of roads and the improvement of gradients, intersections and bridges which greatly assist traffic flow and where the benefits offered fully justify their cost. Most major road improvements costing £250,000 or more do provide additional lane capacity.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department has consistently under-estimated the increase in traffic? Will he give a much greater priority to road-widening provisions?

Mr. Peyton: I am always very interested to have the advice of my hon. Friend. If he can bring to my notice any of the projects he has in mind I should be most grateful.

Mr. Sillars: Is the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is the Minister aware that if the Tory Party's


programme of cuts in public expenditure is carried out sanctions will be refused to a whole number of road improvement programmes? Will he give an assurance that this will not apply in development areas?

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that both my hon. Friend and I will profit from any advice offered by the hon. Member.

Cattle Haulage (Transport Drivers' Hours)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consult representatives of the Scottish agricultural industry about the anticipated effect upon the marketing of livestock in the north of Scotland of the rising cost of transport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the difficulties arising both for farmers and animals in the haulage of cattle, he will review the operation of the Transport Act.

Mr. Peyton: I propose to lay regulations before the House as soon as possible, to allow a further relaxation of the drivers' hours rules under the Transport Act, 1968, as regards the carriage of animals.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give the House more details of the extent and nature of these relaxations? Does he acknowledge that the increased transport costs which freight carriers, particularly those in the North of Scotland, are experiencing are not due solely to the regulations under the Transport Act but are due also to the cost of supplying themselves with suitable vehicles, which are of only limited use?

Mr. Peyton: Most of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the other part, I have it in mind to allow drivers carrying animals the same concession as has already been provided for agriculture generally at harvest times and for the carriage of fish from ports, namely, a 14-hour working day, a 66-hour working week, and flexibility as regards the weekly rest day.

Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will be greatly welcomed in Scotland, and that this proposal will probably save a great deal of suffering which would otherwise have taken place in the auction marts this autumn?

Mr. Peyton: I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friend.

Railway Services (Subsidies)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about assistance from public funds as it affects the medium- and long-term future of the railway lines in the Highlands.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is considering the future of unremunerative railway passenger services as part of his general study of the country's transport problems. It would be premature to make any firm statement at this stage about services in particular areas.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister will realise that that is a disquieting reply and must cause considerable concern in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands, in view of the vital importance of maintaining lines which were threatened under the previous Conservative Administration by the proposals of Lord Beeching. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no removal of passenger or freight services until alternative transportation is available?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware that in the past five years twice as many railway lines were closed as in the preceding five years. Under the existing procedures every grant must be reviewed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no changes will take place in Scotland, or in any other part of the country, without full consultation, and in Scotland without full consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and appropriate Scottish bodies.

A69, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Transport what was the accident rate of the A69 trunk road between Dunton


Square and Blucher since the introduction of the 40 miles per hour limit and for the comparable period before introduction of the speed limit.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: 1·3 injury accidents per million vehicle miles for the 12 months ending 1st May, 1969 and 1·0 injury accidents per million vehicle miles for the 12 months ending 1st May, 1970. Extensive road improvements had taken place during that period.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he now get ahead with completing the review of speed limits on trunk roads and introducing realistic ones, thereby encouraging local authorities to complete their review of principal routes?

Mr. Heseltine: It is part of my right hon. Friend's review that we should have realistic speed limits.

Hexham Road, Throckley (Footpath)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will improve safety for children and mothers with prams by widening the footpath on the trunk road Hexham Road, Throckley, near the corner of Coach Road.

Mr. Michael Hesletine: Yes, Sir.

Road Programme

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has regarding the road-building programme.

Mr. Peyton: It is the Government's intention to pursue an expanding road programme.

Mr. Ogden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He will recall the spirited and rather waspish independence that he displayed from these benches in the last few years. As he is now a member of a Government which are committed to reducing public expenditure, is he aware that he will have support from this side if he decides to resist any attempts to cut down the road building programme?

Mr. Peyton: Independent occasionally, perhaps; waspish never.

Mr. Blaker: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the document

published yesterday by the British Tourist Authority and the British Road Federation emphasising the importance of an expanding road programme for the growth of our tourist industry? Will he give this document his attention?

Mr. Peyton: I have not yet read the document, but it sounds very interesting indeed and I shall greatly look forward to reading it in a world which is, I know, desperately short of reading matter.

Mr. Mulley: I appreciate the Minister's point about reading matter, but will he tell the House what attitude he and his right hon. Friends are taking to the previous Government's road proposals which were published in a White Paper in May? Will the Government go through with that scheme; or will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the level of expenditure on roads will not fall below that envisaged in the White Paper?

Mr. Peyton: The road programme of the previous Government seemed unusually sensible.

Inland Waterways (Navigation Rights)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to maintain and restore the right of navigation on inland waterways.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to nagivation rights on the inland waterways of the British Waterways Board. This is one of the matters which my right hon. Friend will be reviewing in due course.

Mr. Wells: I hope that my hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration to the representations made to him by the various bodies of canal users.

Mr. Heseltine: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Roads (Short Cuts)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to require local road authorities to list well-known short cuts in their areas and give urgent attention to eliminating danger spots on these roads.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. Highway authorities already have powers to do this.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend urge highways authorities to make a particular study of these places, because these are the places where the maximum number of accidents of a minor nature but still very costly in the aggregate occur?

Mr. Heseltine: It might help if my hon. Friend would let me have specific examples because, obviously, we would want to draw them to the attention of the highway authority concerned as this is a matter for the highway authority.

Mr. Ramsden: By what power are highway authorities beginning to signpost short cuts and other English country roads in kilometres?

Mr. Heseltine: This is a matter entirely for the highway authorities concernd.

Urban Motorways (Compensation to House Owners)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport what compensation will be given to owners of houses deleteriously affected by the building of new urban motorways.

Mr. Peyton: Under present arrangements, no compensation is in general payable unless land is taken.
The whole basis of compensation is under review.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that next to a house bought by his Ministry at a fair price for motorway land there is often a house in which one's constituents have put all their savings and which has become unsaleable? Is this not very unfair?

Mr. Peyton: I would not seek in any way to deny the existence of the problem, which is, indeed, becoming increasingly serious.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware that another aspect of the problem is that contractors when building motorways through urban areas frequently cause great damage to houses and that, although they are very good on apologies, they are weak on giving real help to the people concerned? Will he investigate?

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Gentleman cares to bring any case to my attention, of course I will have it examined.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that amendment of the general law of compensation so as to give it where a house is made uninhabitable although no land is taken is urgently needed from the point of view of both common justice and ensuring the acceptability of urban motorways?

Mr. Peyton: As I hope I have already indicated, I would not dream of denying the gravity of the problem, but at this stage I do not think I should go beyond saying that the whole problem of compensation is under review.

Mr. Lipton: Do something.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) may exhort me to do something, but I hope he will give me time.

M62, Queens Drive-Tarbock

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has decided the route of the Queens Drive-Tarbock section of the M62 motorway.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. We will do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that many houses on that section are now unsaleable? Can he speed up the decision?

Mr. Heseltine: We are aware of the urgency of the problem.

M4 (Middle Section)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the middle section of the M4 to be completed.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: By the end of 1971.

Mr. Berry: Is my hon. Friend aware that that will be very good news for many people, particularly those travelling to South Wales? Is he further aware that I have asked this question many times over the last three years but that now that I am in his capable hands I have no need to ask it again because the date will be kept?

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I am sure that under this Government answers will not change as the months pass.

North Orbital Road, Maple Cross- Hurston Bridge

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Transport when a start will be made on the extension of the north orbital road from Maple Cross to Hurston Bridge.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: In 1972, I hope.

Mr. Tuck: Is that a definite promise or just a hope?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that there remain certain outstanding statutory procedures, but we hope to do as I have said by the end of 1972.

A41 Bypass, King's Langley-Tring

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Transport when the route of the A41 bypass, King's Langley to Tring, will be published.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: In a few months' time, Sir.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that planning blight has descended on the line of this road and has been in effect for a considerable time? If there is to be this further delay, will he make special arrangements to deal with planning blight?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate the anxiety of the whole House about this problem, but we cannot deal with this scheme otherwise than according to the normal statutory processes. They are complicated, but we must try to reach the best decision we can.

M2, Dover

Mr. Peter Rees: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the importance of Dover as a port and of the traffic congestion in Dover, he will consider extending the M2 round the town to the eastern arm of Dover harbour.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. We shall be prepared to consider extending the A2 around the town of Dover only when traffic requirements are shown to justify it.

Mr. Rees: Does my hon. Friend realise that the problem is urgent and the threat

to Dover as a town and port is such as to justify an early extension? Will he give an assurance that he will not use as a pretext the possibility of a Channel Tunnel, as the previous Administration did?

Mr. Heseltine: I can answer my hon. Friend in specific terms dealing purely with Dover. Conditions should be considerably relieved by the York Street diversion scheme, which will help all traffic, not just traffic to the eastern docks, and, as my hon. Friend knows, there are other schemes under consideration.

Brookland, Romney Marsh (Speed Limit)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now allow the introduction of a speed limit in the village of Brookland, Romney Marsh.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. I do not think that a speed limit would be justified.

Mr. Costain: My hon. Friend has given a disappointing answer. Will he, please, not rely on the argument put up by his predecessor, now on the benches opposite, that there have not been enough accidents to warrant a speed limit? This is a dangerous stretch of road. Will he look into it again?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we must use speed limits only where they will be observed. The feeling is that on this stretch of road they would not be warranted.

Goods Vehicles (Tachographs)

Mr. Mather: asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated cost of the introduction of tachographs to monitor drivers' hours as provided for in the Transport Act, 1968.

Mr. Peyton: £30 million for the 650,000 goods vehicles for which tachographs might be required to be fitted if Section 97 of the Act were to be implemented.

Mr. Mather: This would be an excessively costly requirement. Will my right hon. Friend see fit to cancel it?

Mr. Peyton: I have no present intention of introducing a scheme.

Quantity Licensing

Mr. Mather: asked the Minister of Transport what is the annual estimated cost to the Government and to industry of the quantity licensing provisions in the Transport Act, 1968.

Mr. Peyton: It is unnecessary to cost the effect of these cumbersome provisions, as they will be repealed at the first opportunity and will meanwhile remain inoperative.

Mr. Mather: That is welcome news. Has my right hon. Friend any statement to make on carriers licensing?

Mr. Peyton: I am considering the possibility of ending the existing system of carriers licensing for large vehicles, and I have invited comments from road and rail interests.

Humber Bridge

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the future of the Humber Bridge project.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed building of the Humber Bridge.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with the Humber Bridge Board; and if he will make a statement about a date for the construction of the bridge.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: We are studying the proposals for the Humber Bridge, but I am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are not prepared to go ahead with this most important project, especially in the light of statements made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology about the importance of infrastructure improvement within development and intermediate areas? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what he has said seems to bear out the worst forebodings which many of us had at the last election, that the Tories would not build the bridge?

Mr. Heseltine: The bridge has, I think, suffered from a surfeit of statements, even if some of them coincided with opportune by-elections. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to construe my remarks in the way he did.

Mr. Wall: The last Government promised us the bridge and then would not provide any money for its construction. Will my hon. Friend try to do better, and can he say when he hopes to be able to make a firm statement?

Mr. Heseltine: It was, perhaps, regrettable that the promise was made for votes and not with the intention of proceeding with the bridge. We fully realise that this is a matter of great concern. We are examining it. Obviously, it has important implications for the whole area.

Mr. Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman take it that I was looking forward to the chance of thanking him today for reaffirming a pledge given by a former Socialist Minister to build the bridge?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: How long did the hon. Gentleman and his Government take?

Mr. Johnson: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that all sections of the public, all parties, and all commerce and industry on Humberside badly want the bridge? It is impossible to plan Humberside without linking the two banks. Why cannot he give a definite answer?

Mr. Heseltine: I have already explained that we consider the bridge project to be of great importance. We want to consider it in great depth. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to make statements until it has been thoroughly examined by the new Administration.

Mr. Bob Brown: It is not true that, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, we sanctioned the bridge and were not prepared to provide funds. It is well known that we were interested in the infrastructure and the approach roads. When the Parliamentary Secretary speaks of reviewing the situation, does that mean that what he is determining is whether he will improve on the date which we had set as 1972?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman should be fully aware that, far from making money available, the previous Administration made clear that they would not do so and that the bridge would be financed by tolls. That is the situation, and it very much commends itself to us at this moment.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend, perhaps, not able to give an immediate decision because he has in mind that intermediate areas in the region would be better served by, for example, improving the trunk roads between the Humberside ports and the Yorkshire wool textile district?

Mr Heseltine: My hon. Friend will expect us to consider those matters as part of our general survey.

Public Transport, Wessex

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to the report entitled, "Towards 1990—An Independent Proposal for the Integration of Public Transport in Wessex", a copy of which is in his possession.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: This report, recently received, is being studied by my Department.

Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he not agree that, in view of the inadequacy of the transport system in the area and the plans for extensive development, there is an urgent need for a better integrated transport system in Wessex?

Mr. Heseltine: The report was received only on 3rd July. While there are many interesting aspects to it, including the relationship which it may have with the South Hampshire Study, we must have more time to consider it.

Peak Period Traffic Flows

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on his policy in relation to speeding up road traffic, preventing traffic jams, easing road congestion at peak periods and encouraging road-users to use public transport during peak periods by a system of cheaper fares between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: This is a somewhat large matter. I am prepared to consider any means of securing this desirable objective.
The question of differential fares at peak periods is one for transport operators.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he realise that everyone now is saying that if we go on as we are our big cities will come to a halt at peak periods? Is it not advisable to get road users who use a car for only one person to change to public transport, if need be by letting them go on the buses free of charge, which would help the police to maintain the flow of traffic?

Mr. Heseltine: This is a subject on which a wide variety of solutions is contemplated, many of which are being tried or experimented with by the local authorities. But there can be no global solution, and directing people to go from private to public transport is not an idea which we should immediately commend.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister, while considering this matter, at least take action to prevent the Manchester area transport authority, the S.E.L.N.E.C., from carrying into effect its penal suggestion of surcharges during these periods?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was his party when in Government which gave the power to the people of Manchester to make up their own mind locally, which they have now done. The matter is subject to investigation by the traffic commissioners.

Boughton Bypass, A2

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister of Transport what is the planned completion date of the Boughton bypass, A2.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The end of 1974, I hope.

Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware of the extreme local anxiety about this long-delayed extension of the A2, and will he do everything in his power to ensure that the work is carried out at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the problem; it has been raised by other hon. Members. Unfortunately, there


have been objections to the draft order under Section 7 of the Highways Act, 1959. An order under Section 9 and a compulsory purchase order are to be published, and these may in turn attract further objections.

M62, Kingston upon Hull

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport what stage has been reached in his plans for the extension of the M62 east of the A1 towards Kingston upon Hull.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Proposals for the route from Rawcliffe to Balkholme were published in April. We hope to publish proposals for the route from Ferrybridge to Rawcliffe later this year.

Mr. Johnson: Does the Minister agree that there is a glaring omission in that the M62 goes only to Gilberdyke, 12 miles short of Hull? Is not it spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar not to take it on to the city?

Mr. Heseltine: It is often practicable to deal with stretches of motorway only in isolation. I wish it were possible to do otherwise. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that local factors must be taken into account.

Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that traffic to the third port of the country is being throttled by appalling East-West communications? Will he do his very best to speed up new roads in the area?

Mr. Heseltine: This is one of the many claims put to us.

Mr. George Jeger: Is the Minister aware that the recent discovery that the canal bridges to the east of Ferrybridge are in need of repair makes the M62 an even more urgent problem?

Mr. Heseltine: There are very lengthy and detailed statutory procedures through which one must go. There is no way of avoiding these, though we might consider doing something to reduce the time involved.

Container Terminal, Greenock

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce formal approval of the second stage of development of the container

terminal at Greenock as proposed to him by the Clyde Port Authority.

Mr. Peyton: As I indicated yesterday during the debate on the Second Reading of the Harbours (Amendment) Bill, I have authorised this scheme under Section 9 of the 1964 Act.—[Vol. 803, c. 1375.]

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he bear in mind that if the second stage goes as well as the first it may not be very long before he receives an application for a third stage?

Mr. Peyton: I am so glad to have been able to please the hon. Gentleman.

Road and Rail Services, North-East

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for talks with the passenger transport authority in the North-East with the view to securing the early integration of road and rail services in the area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is the duty of each passenger transport authority to secure the provision of a properly integrated system of public passenger transport in its area. The Tyneside authority and executive will shortly be publishing a statement of their policy.

Mr. Milne: Whilst I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that his responsibilities do not end there? When the report is completed he must make an examination of the transport needs of the North-East, because traffic congestion is linked with the question of road and rail integration. It is vital that he does not just burke the responsibility and pass it elsewhere.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that before anything can be put at our doorstep we must await the report of the Tyneside P.T.A.

London Underground (Breakdown)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the dangers to life and health which resulted from the breakdown of the


London Underground on 6th July, he will make a statement about the cause of this occurrence and as to the steps being taken to prevent a repetition.

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. As the statement is inevitably somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the statement contain an indication that my right hon. Friend is concerned to lay down that there should be an alternative supply of light to the trains and sufficient power to move them to the nearest station in the event of a repetition of the potentially very dangerous situation which existed on Monday of last week?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate my right hon. Friend's concern. Perhaps I could just read to him one extract from the statement:
Detailed investigations are now being made by London Transport to see what further steps can be taken to avoid a recurrence of this serious power failure before modernisation is completed ….
Following is the statement:
Electrical power is supplied to the Underground by the London Transport power stations at Lots Road and Greenwich. Lots Road, which has recently been modernised, is the main station and it supplies power at 22,000 volts. Greenwich is at present undergoing modernisation and is temporarily working in two parts; old steam turbines, which are gradually being replaced, supply power at 11,000 volts and newly installed gas turbines supply at 22,000 volts. The distribution system from Greenwich is designed for 11,000 volts only, so the 22,000 volts supply has to be stepped down by transformers at the power station.
Whilst the work of modernisation is going on at Greenwich the station cannot meet the maximum demands made on it at peak periods. It therefore draws power from Lots Road through a heavy underground cable that links the two stations. This cable is protected by circuit breakers, like giant fuses, that are set to operate if the current becomes too great.
At 17.13 on Monday, 6th July a relay that operates the circuit breakers failed and the breakers cut off current in the heavy cable, although at this time the load was well below the maximum allowed. The immediate overload thus put on to the Greenwich station operated further protective circuit breakers within the station and power was cut off from a large part of the system supplied from Greenwich. This affected all the Underground lines except the Victoria Line, which is fed from Lots Road directly, and the Metropolitan line north of Baker Street, which is supplied from the Grid.

In the case of most lines the traction current was lost only intermittently, or was restored after a short period, but power supplies to the signalling system and to the all-stations communications system operated from the London Transport headquarters were not fully restored until 19.30. The loss of the communication system led to rapid overloading of the internal telephone circuits and made the task of informing passengers of the situation extremely difficult.
There were some 200,000 people on the Underground system at the time of the failure of whom some 30,000 were in trains seriously affected by the failure. Where traction current was available, but signals had failed, trains were moved with extreme caution to the nearest station. Where trains could not be moved the passengers were kept in them, except that the decision was taken to evacuate a number of trains, including three in deep tunnels. In these cases evacuation was done in an orderly manner and in accordance with laid down procedures. Although passengers must have suffered considerable discomfort because of the heat there was no general danger from electrical shock or lack of air. Although some passengers were overcome by the heat there have been no reports of injury or serious illness.
The modernisation of power supplies to the Underground is being carried out in accordance with recommendations by three of the leading firms of electrical consultants in Britain. It was a task of considerable complexity to keep Lots Road functioning during the installation of new plant and the same problems are being tackled at Greenwich. It is believed that, when the modernisation of Greenwich is completed in 1972, there will be the most reliable possible system of electrical supply for the London Underground.
Detailed investigations are now being made by London Transport to see what further steps can be taken to avoid a recurrence of this serious power failure before modernisation is completed and also what steps can be taken to Improve the reliability of the communications system in circumstances such as occurred.
My inspecting officers are keeping in close touch with these investigations.

Alvechurch Bypass, Worcestershire

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects work will start on the proposed Alvechurch bypass in Worcestershire; and when he expects the bypass to be completed.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Not for some years, Sir.

Mr. Dance: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great congestion which is caused there, particularly by transporters going to and from the British Leyland works in Birmingham?

Mr. Heseltine: As I have said, there are statutory procedures, and the matter


is in the hands of the various people responsible for constructing the road. We want to proceed as quickly as we can.

M6-M1 Midland Link

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that the M6-M1 link will be completed not later than the end of 1971.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dance: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. For so long when the party opposite was in power we had so much indecision. This will certainly cause a great deal of pleasure to many people.

Mr. Mulley: Is the Minister aware that the date was made public a long time ago? In opening the first part of the link I indicated when it would be concluded. I am glad to see that the Government will maintain the date we set.

Mr. Heseltine: I have not the slightest doubt that in 1990 the Minister will be claiming credit for all the roads we built in the meanwhile.

Rail Services (Reopening)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the traffic congestion and parking difficulties caused in part by rail closures, he will seek powers to enable him to secure the reopening of railway lines.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that that is an extremely disappointing reply? A number of closures of railway lines linking South-East Northumberland with Newcastle have resulted in traffic congestion in that area. Is he aware that the best way of avoiding that congestion is to consider reopening the existing railway links recently closed? As a result of the industrial development of the area in the past five or six years it is imperative that those railway links be reopened.

Mr. Peyton: Of course I realise that negative answers to such Questions as the hon. Gentleman asked are always unwelcome. Nevertheless, before what are always painful decisions are taken the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are always taken into account.

Clyde-Forth Ports Authority

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been received from the Clyde and Forth port authorities proposing the formation of a single Clyde-Forth Authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: None, Sir.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland all shades of opinion, including the two port authorities themselves, are very much in favour of their coming together? Will he take urgent steps to ensure that dogma in no way stands against their coming together in the general interests of Scotland?

Mr. Peyton: We on this side of the House do not know what dogma is. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech yesterday with interest. All that I meant by my answer was that I have not yet been approached. But if those authorities wish to discuss these matters with me I shall be only too pleased to listen to any proposals they wish to make.

Road Vehicle Spot Checks (Information)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport why, in view of the fact that spot checks are carried out by his Department on road vehicles in the interests of road safety, details of such spot checks are not kept available for issue to Members of Parliament, road safety organisations and other persons; and whether he will take steps to ensure that this information is available in the future.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Comprehensive information about the work of Ministry examiners at roadside checks and the results are already published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in the annual reports of the licensing authorities. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister reconsider the matter? When I put a Question asking for the information I was told that it was not available. If the spot checks take place, and no particulars are kept of the number of vehicles on the road without roadworthiness certificates, as is the case, surely those particulars should be kept and the figures should be given, and details should be made available to


the organisations mentioned in my Question?

Mr. Heseltine: A great deal of information is published in the annual reports. I shall certainly look again at the point the hon. Gentleman raises to see whether the reports can be accompanied with this information. I shall see what I can do to provide it for him.

Public Transport Services

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the deterioration of public transport services in various parts of the country is causing inconvenience and hardship to many people; and if he will undertake a review of transportation policy with a view to improving public transport services, including the level of Exchequer assistance.

Mr. Peyton: While I am aware of the difficulties confronting public transport, I cannot say that any easy answers have yet presented themselves.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that his reply will be received with consternation not only by passengers but by other people throughout the country, and that unless an urgent inquiry is carried out into public transport services completely chaotic traffic conditions will arise in the towns?

Mr. Peyton: It is very flattering to the new Administration to reflect that hon. Gentlemen opposite should think that we would be able in a matter of two or three weeks to change the thoroughly unsatisfactory situation which they left behind them.

A594, Penrith-Lillyhall

Dr. John Cunningham: asked the Minister of Transport if he will ensure that the planned improvements to the A594 from Penrith to Lillyhall will be completed in full without delay.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Cunningham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, and I hope that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a Question.

Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister aware of the need for much greater transport improvements throughout the whole of the West Cumberland area?

Mr. Heseltine: I know of no area where there is not a need for improvements in transportation. We do our best to allocate resources on the criteria that apply to each scheme.

Roads, Millom

Dr. John Cunningham: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give priority to improving road communications in the Millom area of South-West Cumberland, in view of their importance to attract new industry to the town.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: No, Sir. We consider each case on its merits.

Dr. Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have heard in previous debates of his Government's intention to approve the industrial infrastructure of areas like Millom? How does he think this can be achieved without major improvements in communications?

Mr. Heseltine: In the major debates we have made clear the importance we attach to infrastructure improvements. I very much doubt that there will be any actions that bring that policy into question.

Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that whilst the road communications with Millom could probably be very much improved by building the Barrow link road, there are very serious objections in the Morecambe Bay area? Will he agree to a public inquiry now that he has heard of these objections?

Mr. Heseltine: That does not quite come within the Question. I shall write to my hon. Friend about his point.

Invalid Carriage Licences

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider taking steps to give drivers of the three-wheeled invalid carriage licences to drive a four-wheeled invalid carriage where they have substantial experience of safe driving.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The present driver licensing arrangements do not differentiate between three-wheeled and four-wheeled invalid carriages.

Mr. Hardy: Is there not an anomaly here? Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a person who has driven a three-wheeled vehicle for 10 years without an accident is not regarded as being qualified for a licence to drive a four-wheeled vehicle?

Mr. Heseltine: I am not aware of any anomaly in the application of this licensing system, but if the hon. Gentleman would like me to write to him on the matter, I will do so.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful.

EARLY DAY MOTION No. 10

Mr. Judd: On a point of order. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for delaying the House with a point of order, but I should like to draw your attention to the fact that on today's Order Paper my name has been added to the list of those supporting Early Day Motion No. 10, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).
In making this point, I do not reflect on the Table Office, which does a first-class job in difficult circumstances. I have checked with the Table Office and I understand that there may have been a genuine printer's error. However, I wanted to take the first possible opportunity to make it clear to the House that I have added my name to the signatures to the two Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) and that I would never have added my name to such a ludicrous Motion.

Mr. Speaker: I can deal only with the point of order, not the point of argument. The correction will be made.
I am glad that the hon. Member has accompanied his point of order with a tribute to those who prepare the Order Paper so faithfully.

BALANCE OF TRADE FIGURES

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. May I have your advice, Mr. Speaker? You will be aware that today there have been allegations in the Press and on the radio by a well-known firm

of jobbers in the City concerning a possible leak yesterday of the trade figures. As many citizens in the country will be considering this as the first major manifestation of a return to normal Conservative financial morality, have you had a request from the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not mix points of order with political thrusts. I have had no such request. There will be a Business Question tomorrow and the hon. Member will have the opportunity to raise the matter then.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in order to ask whether the Chair finds any satisfaction in having had 69 Questions answered today and to observe that if the supplementary questions asked by Labour Members had been as pithy as the Ministerial answers we would have done even better?

Mr. Speaker: Factually, we reached Question No. 69, but that does not mean that 69 Questions were answered.
The Chair is always happy when we make progress in Questions. We make progress if Ministerial answers and supplementary questions by back benchers are concise. That is the fact of the matter.

BILL PRESENTED

TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by Mr. Edward M. Taylor, presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State by regulations to secure the payment of fees to the General Teaching Council for Scotland for the renewal of registrations in pursuance of section 6 of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965, by way of deduction from the salaries of persons employed by education authorities and managers of educational establishments; and for purposes connected therewith; And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (OLD PERSONS' AND WIDOWS' PEN SIONS AND ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

PENSIONS FOR OR IN RESPECT OF PERSONS OVER PENSIONABLE AGE 5TH JULY, 1948

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 7 of this Act all benefits under this section shall be payable out of the National Insurance Fund.

The Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we consider Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out '£3' and insert '£5'.
Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out '£1 17s. 0d.' and insert '£3 2s. 0d.'.

Mr. O'Malley: As it stands, the Clause provides for pensions or grants for perhaps 100,000 aged persons who were over pensionable age on 5th July, 1948, their wives, or their widows, who are either not receiving the present retirement pension, or who are receiving less than the benefits to be provided under the Bill. The sums provided by the Bill are £3, and £1 17s. for a wife, or £3 for a widow.
The House should have the opportunity to examine the reasons for the decision to fix the amount of the payments at the proposed level. We must also discuss the criteria upon which this use of resources in the manner proposed is based. In addition, it should be established whether other groups in the community are being treated equitably once the principles underlying the Clause are accepted and the sums laid down in it are in payment.
I should explain at the outset that the paving Amendment, No. 15, is merely a procedural device to allow discussion of the subject. The Money Resolution—I do not complain about this; it is not an unusual practice—is so tightly drawn as to prevent Amendments which would involve the Treasury in extra expense. But, by one of those curious circumstances of history, no such limitation is placed upon us if we are discussing payments proposed to be made out of the National Insurance Fund. I make it clear at the outset that the Labour Party believes that the contributory principle is an extremely important principle from which we should not lightly deviate. We shall not press and would not want to press the paving Amendment upon which the discussion of the other two Amendments rests.
The House will have the opportunity to ask why the figures have been fixed at £3 and £1 17s. The Government's case—and we shall hear more during the course of this debate—was briefly explained on Second Reading. We were told that this was rough justice, belated rough justice, that the Government were trying to strike a balance among the existing 7 million retirement pensioners, many of whom had been lifelong contributors to the National Insurance scheme, part pensioners and non-pensioners under the existing scheme, and the specific group of non-pensioners with whom the Clause deals.
If we are to discuss whether these figures are satisfactory and realistic, we have to examine the proposition that this is rough justice and consider the kind of criteria which the Government have taken into account, or ought to have taken into account, in reaching these figures. Are the Government's figures based on the needs of those affected by the Clause?
Under the system of supplementary pensions payable under the 1966 Act—an important Measure passed by the Labour Administration—we have a minimum standard of income, with built-in flexibility, to meet differing circumstances. For example, the amount of rent an old age pensioner might be paying may be taken into account, whatever the age of the pensioner. It is important to take note of the background


of the provisions that already apply under the supplementary allowances system before examining in detail the sums of £3 and £1 17s. provided for in the Bill.
Who will gain from the Bill? One assumes that the criterion of rough justice means that justice will be meted out to people generally, according to the standards laid down by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to meet need. Of the 100,000 people affected by the Clause, we understand from the Government that about 50,000 are already receiving supplementary pensions from the Commission. For those of the 50,000 who are receiving the full £3—presumably that number forms a large proportion of the 50,000; can we be told the precise number?—there will be no gain from the Bill. Indeed, those receiving any supplementary pension will get less than the £3 proposed in the Bill.
If the aim of the Bill is to maximise the number of aged persons dealt with by the Clause, so improving their standard of living, then a figure higher than the £3 proposed is required. After all, the payment of this £3 will mean that a considerable proportion of the 50,000 people will still be in need of supplementary benefit, which shows that this sum will not meet the needs of this section of the community.
There is a second group of people who are receiving supplementary benefit, but of sums worth less than £3. They will become better off, not only compared with other retirement pensioners who are receiving supplementary benefit—and who, therefore, must be in need—but better off also than other non-pensioners over 80 who are already receiving supplementary benefit of £3 a week or more.
There is a third group; those who are just not entitled to supplementary benefit because of their income or other capital. This £3 proposal will mean that they will be raised well above the standards of other pensioners who are receiving supplementary benefit, and well above the standards of some people in this group of non-pensioners over 80. It is clear, therefore, that many of these 100,000 people will feel anxious over this, in view of the new inequalities that will be created.
A better way of dealing with this problem would have been to deal with those people just above the supplementary

benefit level by changing the disregards. It has been pointed out that there are those among this aged section of the community who will not claim supplementary benefit, even when they are entitled to it. In Friday's debate the Secretary of State asked us to recognise
… that this vintage group contains a large number who would be entitled to supplementary benefit".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1011.]
What evidence is there of this large number to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? In any event, we see that the figure of £3 will not meet, except in the limited circumstances of that section of non-pensioners over 80, the needs of those who are not prepared to receive supplementary benefit.
3.45 p.m.
Although it is said that £3 will give rough justice, when we examine the matter we find that it will not only create new inequalities within the existing 100,000 non-pensioners over 80 but also that it will create inequalities between part of this group of elderly citizens and other groups of elderly people. The result is that a number of retirement pensioners—pensioners drawing the full contributory retirement pension—with an entitlement to a supplementary pension, as well as others with an entitlement—for example, those with resources which take them just above the scale rates—will be worse off as a result of this figure of £3 and the general formula of the Clause than will those who have paid no contributions at all. This is bound to cause grievances.
It is, of course, desirable for non-pensioners over 80 to receive additional help. However, we must not forget that there will be other retirement pensioners, particularly the chronically sick pensioners, of that age and less who have paid contributions but who will be worse off as a result of this Clause, because of the level proposed, compared with other pensioners.
If it is true that there are numbers of these non-pensioners over 80 who are unwilling to draw supplementary benefit, it is equally true that there are younger pensioners and others who adopt a similar attitude. If the Government are prepared to recognise the reluctance of one section of the community to go for supplementary pension, and are ready to


find a way round it, they should ask whether they should do something for other sections. So need is not really the criterion which led the Government to fix these figures.
Then is the criterion equity between one set of contributors and another, one age group and another and within age groups? The Secretary of State said that there were three groups within the estimated 100,000 affected. The first was those excluded from both the pre-1948 schemes and the 1948 scheme. A case can be made for bringing these people within the system, whatever their other income. But this is not the only group. It is too late to start establishing the exact numbers, but a second group is those who could have paid under the 1948 scheme but chose not to do so. The third group, which the Secretary of State said was a small group, are those covered by the pre-1948 schemes, who—I am almost quoting the right hon. Gentleman—due to deficient contributions, are entitled to less than the benefits provided by Clause 1, that is, £3.
But some will be entitled to more than £3. Therefore, although they are of this age, they would not benefit from the £3 provision. So, on grounds of equity, we must consider other groups who could have qualified but did not. Once the Government had taken this decision, it was hard to conclude, as the Secretary of State did on Friday about other groups:
I emphasise that the benefit is not being extended to those who could have qualified for full pension under hte 1948 scheme but who for one reason or another failed to do SO."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1009.]
Nothing was being done for those. Some of these people did not pay for 10 years or withdrew their contributions after a brief period and are getting nothing. The reason they did not pay was perhaps that they were very poor and could not afford it.
So if a second group is to be provided for, what about those people, who also had the opportunity? Would £3 be fair to them? Is it equitable that even £3 is paid to this group over 80 if nothing is done for this other very poor group?
Another group which is relevant in view of the 10-year residence qualification are the many elderly people who

were abroad for many years—this was quite common in the later days of the Empire—and have deficient contribution records. Can one pay £3 to the present group and do nothing about these people? A third group is those who are deficient in contributions. One example in particular would engage the sympathy of the House—those women, now elderly, who stayed at home as single women to look after an invalid parent. What will the Government do for these other groups?
The criterion is not need and it cannot be equity. I have taken the case presented over the years by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that at least some of these people were excluded from the 1948 scheme and the pre-1948 schemes. One then has to decide how much shall be payable to them. The Government could have adopted a number of formulae, but they appear to have adopted none of them. We need a detailed explanation of this figure.
First, the Government could have asked what would be an actuarial pension for a pensioner and his wife aged 65 at the moment, on actuarial calculations and no other. But the figures in the Bill are not actuarial amounts, since they would be much larger. Second, they could have said that these people had not paid contributions but that, in this tripartite system of payments for the National Insurance Fund, about 18 per cent. is the Exchequer supplement so that there was a respectable argument for making it 18 per cent. But that would have been a very low figure and would not have satisfied anyone who thought that these people should have some pension. So the Government have not worked out a formula by any mathematical principles. Instead, they have provided the figures of £3 and £1 17s. by rule of thumb alone.
The Government told us that this was not only justice but also rough justice. We are therefore entitled to ask, "Why £3?" If it is to be £3, and if the payment is so belated, should not there be a backdating? The people concerned have been in this position for 20 years. Nothing has been done until now, when this Bill has been brought before the House. As a recognition of the fact that rough justice is now being done to these people


so very belatedly, could not there be a lump sum payment?
4.0 p.m.
It is not possible to argue a case on grounds of need, in fixing a figure of this kind, because the supplementary benefits system is designed to cope with that. It is not possible to argue a case on grounds of equity, because by introducing this system we are creating new inequities within the existing National Insurance system. Since it is the view of the Government that this group of people deserves a pension as of right—because, it is said, they did not have an opportunity of putting themselves within the system—one would have thought that the Government would follow the advice of their own back benchers who have argued for many years that these people should be provided for. One would have thought that the Government would say, "We are not arguing in terms of equity. We know that new problems have arisen, in respect of which we have a certain moral responsibility." I hope that the Government will tell us how they intend to fulfil that new moral responsibility, which they have created by the introduction of this Bill.
Why not give these people the money? Let them have the same £5 as everyone else. That would certainly look much better. The Government have made a political decision and not a decision based on equity. They say that they are providing rough justice. I say that it is very rough justice to take this group of people and to create sections within the group, and also to make comparisons with other groups. The Government have thought it right to give pensions—not based on need—to those excluded as a group. One would have thought that they would pay £5 rather than resort to this mean expedient of knocking the figure down. The Parliamentary Secretary is in some difficulty on this matter, and he has some explaining to do.

Mr. Airey Neave: I hope that the Committee will acquit me of any discourtesy if I leave after making a short speech, but I have to attend a meeting upstairs.
I was somewhat dumbfounded to hear the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) advocating that these old

people should receive £5, because at the beginning of the year he was a member of the then Government who insisted in talking out a Bill which would have paid these people a full pension. Now that the hon. Member has been converted in this way we are very interested to hear his new views on the subject.
He was right to ask the questions he did ask. I am asking the same ones. I have consistently advocated the payment of a full pension to these people, unlike the hon. Member, who has consistently advocated that they should have no pension. It is remarkable to find the hon. Member, after a brief election campaign, advocating from the opposite side of the House the payment of a pension to these people. I realise that we should not always take the Amendment Paper too literally, but those who do not know our procedures will have been astonished to hear what the hon. Member said.

Mr. O'Malley: I understand the debating point that the hon. Member is making. We agree that the Government have a mandate to do this, and since they have accepted the principle we say that they should put that principle fully into operation.

Mr. Neave: Whether people outside the House will understand the reasoning by which the hon. Member arrives at that conclusion after the record of the Labour Party for the last six years is another matter. I think that they will be astonished at the cynicism of these Amendments. If I had time I would produce speeches made by the hon. Member for Rotherham, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who have their names to the Amendment. The right hon. Member for Sowerby is rather an exception in this case, because after he left the Labour Cabinet he showed a compassionate view and spoke generally in favour of the Bill. The wording of the Amendment is rather extraordinary. I hope that it is not a face-saving exercise. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham is converted to my point of view. If he is I shall be very pleased.
I was disappointed that a full pension was not obtained. I do not conceal my


disappointment. On the other hand. I have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has included other people in the Bill—people whom we shall discuss in further Amendments.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member mentioned earlier that he had not time to quote from the speeches made by my hon. Friends on the question of pensions for this class of people. Would he refresh his mind in terms of the speech made by his right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Education and Science? She said that to breach the principle of contribution would be very serious, and that one would not do it easily. She rejected the hon. Member's argument in 1962.

Mr. Neave: Before the hon. Member came to the House I began this contest against the previous Conservative Government. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science held a view about the contributory principle. But on the Second Reading of this Bill it was astonishing to hear Members of the party opposite—which opposed similar Bills introduced over the last few years on the ground that they introduced a breach of the contributory principle—3½ weeks after the General Election speaking in favour of an Amendment that would provide that these people should receive £5 instead of £3. I merely say it is interesting. I shall go no further because, as I have explained, I have not much time.
The hon. Member's point should be answered in full by my hon. Friend. The bulk of the 100,000 people who remain are people who were excepted from the pre-1948 and the 1948 schemes. The point has already been made several times that they should receive priority in any benefits that ensue because they were prevented from contributing by law. That is the point. They were prevented by the National Insurance Act, 1946. In that respect I agree with what the hon. Member for Rotherham said.
My right hon. Friend made his point in the Second Reading debate, but I am disappointed, as are others, and the Committee will await his explanation. With that, I repeat that I continue to be utterly amazed by the wording of the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: I also was one of the Members who, subsequently to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), introduced a Bill on similar lines to his, and I was followed by two others of my hon. Friends who introduced Bills, which were opposed from beginning to end by the Opposition who were then the Government. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) introducing these Amendments, and I think he took a very clever line. I am not meaning that as complimentary—

Mr. O'Malley: I am quite sure of that.

Dame Irene Ward: I am meaning it as an uncomplimentary compliment. He said his party, as the Government, rejected all the Bills which were brought from this side of the House when we were in Opposition; he went over the entire field.
Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, I also am very disappointed that my right hon. Friend has not found it possible to introduce the full pension which, if I remember rightly, was provided for in the Bills which were brought forward by myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and my two other hon. Friends who are now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of State at the Treasury. My right hon. Friend has been able to offer only a limited pension under this new Bill because there is a limited amount of money—I underline, limited amount of money—available in the Treasury at the moment. I have no doubt that in years to come—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is not a question of there not being sufficient money available in the Treasury. The hon. Lady should realise that she has been taken in by the Conservative election manifesto, as were the electorate. It did not commit the Conservative Party to pay full pension. It was very cleverly worded—"some pension as of right". The hon. Lady, quite sensibly, took the sense of the manifesto rather than its words.

Dame Irene Ward: I am not really dealing with that point at all. What I am dealing with is the original Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and reinforced by myself


and reinforced further by two others of my hon. Friends. That provided for full pension as of right, not £5. I am not being taken in by anybody. I consider that I am able to stand on my own feet and use the brains which God has given me, which may not be very many, but I am not taken in by anybody, and I should like to put it on record now that least of all am I taken in by the arguments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who treated this particular category of pensioners extremely badly indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly they voted against the four Bills and all the time opposed those Bills, and I am perfectly entitled to say what I have said, and I say it again. Possibly I would not have said it had not the hon. Gentleman so smugly intervened. He was merely making a smug intervention and it was a jolly silly one.
4.15 p.m.
There was an interesting point deployed by the hon. Member for Rotherham in moving the Amendment. He referred to the people who had been excused contributions. Contributions to the National Insurance Fund now are obligatory. The people who were excused, to whom he referred, and I am glad he did refer to them, were people whose incomes, whose earnings, were too low, or they were people in the category of those, and there was a large number of them, who gave up work in order to look after their elderly parents. If one wants to be relieved from paying contributions to the National Insurance scheme one has to make an application. The hon. Member for Rotherham may be surprised to hear, now that he has done what he has done, now that his party is in Opposition, that that section of the community cannot, for a variety of reasons, meet the obligations to the National Insurance Fund, and is a section of the community for whom I spoke often when my party was in power. It is worth bearing in mind that the contributions have been ever increasing, and that the increases stemmed, to a very large extent, from six years of Labour Government, who imposed severely increased obligations on individuals within the National Insurance Fund.
I shall be much obliged if my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary of

State will just remember what I am saying, because I am looking for a great deal more to be done in future for those living on small fixed incomes. This Bill is not the limit of what I expect my party to do. What I do know is that my party is likely to do for them a great deal more than the party opposite. After all, all those explanations which were made by the hon. Member for Rotherham existed at the time the Labour Party was in power governing the country and it did absolutely nothing, except add to the problems of people living on small fixed incomes. I always want more done for people living on small fixed incomes. I have argued that over many years.
Another point which the hon. Member made, and it is a very interesting one, was when he was talking about the impossibility—that is absolutely true—of anybody being able to exist on £3 without drawing supplementary benefit; but then, of course, we do not expect, neither does the Opposition expect, retirement pensioners are going to exist on £5, particularly having regard to the inflation increasing all the time when the party opposite was in power. Retirement pensioners who have only £5 retirement pension when they retire also of necessity have to obtain supplementary benefit. All that part of the hon. Member's argument just falls by the board.
What I am saying is that the hon. Member took a very interesting line bringing in a whole lot of things, which do deserve consideration—I am not arguing about that—but which he brought in in order to cover up what is really a very cynical approach by the other side, because they refused to accept my hon. Friend's Bill, and the good Bills which followed that, refused to do anything at all, and yet now, when we implement, within reason, the provisions in the Bills which we were very proud to introduce in the House, the Opposition come forward saying that the amount of pension ought to be not £3 but £5. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear" when they have no responsibility for paying it. I do not like politicians, whether in my own party or the party opposite, who take these cynical approaches politically.
We all have great admiration for the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). He and I have worked together on many ploys. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members do not know the whole of my private life, neither do they know the whole of the private life and private beliefs of the hon. Member for Sowerby. One freedom at least remains to the people of this country. They can do in their private lives many things which they do not have to declare on the Floor of the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Sowerby in his speech on Friday—and I regret that I was unable to be here to try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye—spent a great deal of time explaining the reasons why his Government could not support or introduce the previous Bill on which the present Bill is based. Now that we are introducing the Bill, how is it that he thinks it right to support an Amendment to increase the amount from £3 to £5 when he did not do so previously?
The position of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is not one which I can accept. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, it is a very cynical approach, although I think the hon. Member for Rotherham did his best. I have often heard him speak and he is a very clever individual—and I mean that in the right sense. He is a clever debater and he knows how to try to cover up the objective of the Opposition in putting down the Amendment.
I should like to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State. I am delighted that he has been invited to undertake this great responsibility. I have worked with him in my private life over a long period and I know that he has deep humanity for the people whom we are trying to help today. I can think of no one more suited to introduce and sponsor the Bill.
I am glad that the Conservative Party has started straight away to do something to help people living on small fixed incomes, or perhaps I should say trying to live on small fixed incomes, especially having regard to the difficult financial position of the country.
I do not envy the reputation of the hon. Member for Rotherham however clever he may have been. Every single

person who will benefit under the Bill knows how the Socialist Government failed to recognise his needs and refused to support the Bills put forward by the Conservatives when they were in Opposition. The hon. Member for Rotherham will not be able to pull the wool across the eyes of those senior citizens. That is why the Conservatives won the General Election. The Labour Party thought that they could pull the wool across the eyes of the British public but thank God they could not.
I am glad to welcome the Bill, even though I would have liked more. I have been asking for more all my life, and I have got more out of my Government and my party than I have out of the party opposite. That is why I am a good sound-based Conservative. I do not accept the explanation of the hon. Member for Rotherham. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say about this, and I hope that he has made a little note that when the economy begins to thrive other things will be done to help those who are living at the very bottom because of the ever-increasing inflation which is causing them great hardship and anxiety.

Mr. James Sillars: I will not attempt to answer all the points made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman would have a difficult job.

Mr. Sillars: I hope that she will accept that all those on this side of the House who support the Amendment providing for a higher rate of benefit are not being entirely cynical. It is fair that we should examine the remit which the Government have given to themselves.
Involved in the Amendment is a breach of the contribution principle, which all hon. Members clearly recognise. In fixing the £3 level the Government recognised the repercussions which follow a breach of the contribution principle. We are breaching the princple, according to what the Conservative Party said during the election, for compelling humanitarian reasons. I am completely unencumbered, never having voted against this proposal in the last Parliament, and I favour giving benefits to the people mentioned in the


Bill. But will the people benefit from £3 and £4 17s.? I refer the Government to what was said by the Secretary of State:
Those people who are living entirely or mainly on supplementary benefit will get no gain from this legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1011.]
We are all aware of the mental inhibitions suffered by old people with a degree of pride if they have to apply for supplementary benefit. The Secretary of State in his speech on Second Reading took note of this, and said that this was one reason for giving older people a pension as of right. This being so, people who are already receiving supplementary benefit have been driven by such compelling need that they have had to swallow their pride to apply for it, but they will receive not one penny benefit from the Bill. If the Bill is introduced for humanitarian reasons, surely it is not cynical, for the same humanitarian reasons, to support an Amendment calling for £5, which will benefit those people whom the Secretary of State has said are specifically excluded from benefit. If the Amendment is voted upon, I hope that all Conservatives will vote for it, for the humanitarian reasons they talked about during the General Election. The additional amount involved, as I was told in reply to a recent question, is £5 million in the first full year, decreasing thereafter. Voting for the Amendment should not break the back of the national economy, or any principles of three-line or two-line Whips on the Government side.

4.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. Gentleman for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) on his ingenuity in getting this Amendment in order, although I was amazed when I saw it on the Order Paper in view of the past record of the Labour Party in voting against such Bills as this on every conceivable occasion, and also in view of their record only last Friday.
Last Friday the hon. Member for Rotherham said:
We on this side of the House believe that if we are to use an extra £7 million there are many ways in which it could be used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1082.]

In other words, he was making the point, as did the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), that if we have £7 million in the kitty we can all find a better way in which to spend it. But today they come to the House and suggest, not that we should spend £7 million, but should spend £7 million plus £5 million. The effect of their Amendment is to increase the cost by something like £5 million, in other words, nearly to double it. It comes ill from the Labour benches, who in the past have voted down this proposal, to say that we should not be spending £7 million, but £7 million plus £5 million.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Before the Minister's indignation gets the better of him, may I be allowed to say that we had to put the Amendments in this way in order to get any debate at all on the amount. The Money Resolution specified the amounts in the Bill, which left us no room to put down Amendments on the Bill as it stood. Fortunately, this device of shifting the whole of the expenditure from the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund has enabled us to put down Amendments which were in order and which have been called. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot raise a charge on the Exchequer, but we can bankrupt the National Insurance Fund. That is the extraordinary procedural situation. We wanted a discussion on the amount and wished to be able to ask questions about it. We were advised that if we left the matter to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, it would be out of order for us to have any discussion on any amount other than that in the Clause. We stand quite innocent of any cynicism or ignoble motive. We just wanted a debate, we have got it, and we are very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for replying to it.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), but I thought from the remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) when moving the Amendment that the Opposition were in favour of it and wanted to pay the full £5 pension. But, of course, I accept his explanation and fully understand that procedural devices are sometimes required


to get a debate. If the intention is to get a debate, I am pleased to try to deal with it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the Minister of State agree that some of us who have come new to the House are tired of the manner in which words are bandied about? If we are to accept the Prime Minister's statement that this new Government will be working on the basis of deeds rather than words. If they really want deeds, why do they not accept the Amendment and pay the full £5?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) should sort the matter out with his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench who has said that the intention was just to have a debate. Perhaps I should be allowed to get on to deal with the arguments.

Dame Irene Ward: I wonder if my hon. Friend would like to test out the argument between the Opposition Front Bench and its back bench by saying that it would be easy to solve the matter by not dividing the House on the issue.

Mr. Dean: I thank my hon. Friend. It would be interesting to see whether they intend to do that when the debate comes to an end. [Interruption.] Apparently, the Labour Party do not intend to divide the Committee.
I wish now to come to the points which have been put as to why the Government have chosen this particular figure. I will deal with the points in the order in which the hon. Member for Rotherham raised them.
The hon. Gentleman first asked why the Government have selected £3. As my right hon. Friend made clear on Second Reading last Friday, this was a matter of getting what we felt was a fair balance between the demands of compassion for these very elderly people on the one hand and the feelings and situation of those who have contributed to the existing scheme on the other. It was the judgment of the Government that, in trying to balance those two factors, these figures were fairly reasonable. It was on that basis that the figures were decided upon.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that this was not an equitable proposition that if we were to provide pensions as of

right for these people there were other categories within the existing scheme which should also have been brought in. We are dealing here with people who in the majority of cases have no chance of contributing at all. I concede that there are some people within this group who could have contributed but who did not take the opportunity. In a perfect world we would try to distinguish between those two categories, but it is virtually impossible to distinguish between them because records are not available. We faced the practical choice either of making this distinction, which would have been a breach of an election pledge, or of bringing in all these people who were concerned and who were over pension age in 1948. That was the reason it was not possible to differentiate.
There is a third small category which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, namely those who are getting a part pension which is less than the £3 and whose pensions will be raised. That seems to be a sensible and practical reason. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that there is any inequity in this proposal. The majority of people in the existing scheme are younger, anyway, and therefore the needs which go with age cannot in the majority of cases be as acute as those who are older and who were not able to join. They had a chance to contribute and therefore in that sense opportunities were open to them which were not open in virtually any circumstances to the other people with whom we are dealing. Therefore, the charge of inequity does not stand up.

Mr. O'Malley: The Minister says that a lot of these people are younger. In fact, many of them would be very elderly people, indeed, for example, people who withdrew their option after a brief period after 1948. They are people in their 80s.

Mr. Dean: I concede that there are some who are old, but the point is that they had a chance to contribute, though they may have withdrawn their option, in a way in which the particular people we are trying to help in this Clause did not.
The next point made by the hon. Gentleman was that it cannot be said that the people covered by the Clause are in need. We had a long debate on this


matter on Friday. In our judgment, we feel that they are in need. I concede that those who are being fully supported by supplementary benefit will not gain by this measure. I fully concede that. They are the people who have already been prepared to accept the supplementary benefit which is available to them as of right if they fall within the terms of it. However, we are dealing with a generation who, possibly mistakenly, look on these matters differently from the existing generation. There are some who were not prepared to bring themselves to accept supplementary benefit as of right. That is the practical situation which we face.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many there are. We do not know, except from our personal experience. I am sure that every hon. Member knows at least one and probably more of these people. We may say that they are mistaken and that they ought to accept supplementary benefit. The fact is that they have not been prepared to do so. The only way in which they can be brought help is by this Measure. That is why we say that we are dealing with need—in some cases, with acute need.
I turn now to the calculation of the £3. I said that, in our view, it was a fair figure in the light of the factors which had to be balanced. I would also make it clear that it is not based on what has been called the uncovenanted or non-actuarial portion of the retirement pension. The £3 is not provided because it corresponds to any such notion. In this, we follow the previous Administration and the earlier Conservative Administrations.
National Insurance finance is based on the "Pay as You Go" principle, and it is wrong to suppose that any division of pension into covenanted and uncovenanted is justified. In a "Pay as You Go" scheme, one is transferring resources in the most equitable way possible from the existing working generation to the existing retired generation. In doing so, one is creating a right to benefit on the part of the working population.
Naturally, some of my hon. Friends are disappointed that it has not been possible to go further, but it is encouraging to know that they have accepted that this proposal is a fair balance in the light of all the circumstances. I am glad to hear, too, that hon. Members opposite do not intend to press the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: The Committee listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who unfortunately is not with us at the moment. The hon. Lady has a rather special place in the affections of the House. I had better not say "of hon. Members", especially after her remarks about private life. I feel that I must reply to some of her points.
The hon. Lady asked why it was that, when the Labour Party was in office, it opposed the Bills brought forward first by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and then by other hon. Members. There is no argument between the two sides about the need to help this group of elderly people, along with elderly people generally. The only argument that there has been—and it is continuing today—is about the best way to channel the resources which are available to help people of this age group and retirement pensioners generally. The previous Government chose another formula. They chose, for example, to put up the supplementary benefit rates very substantially in real value from those which were payable by the National Assistance Board in 1964. They chose to expend growing sums of money on rate rebates and on health and welfare services, all of which were mentioned in the Second Reading debate.
The hon. Lady complained bitterly that people on fixed incomes and younger people under retirement age had suffered as a result of increases in contributions imposed by the Labour Government when they were in office. However, the Committee knows, and the Parliamentary Secretary better than most, that, under the National Insurance system that we have—the "Pay as You Go" system which was brought about in 1959—there is no great inherited fund from which pensions can be paid. The only source out of which retirement pensions can be paid is made up of the contributions of working men and women in the community and contributions from the Exchequer. If the hon. Lady indicts us because we put up contributions, we have to admit our guilt. The reason was that there were more retirement pensioners who needed a State pension, and we improved substantially the real value of


the retirement pensions being paid when we took over in 1964.
I turn now to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. He began by saying that he was amazed that we had moved the Amendment. I say straight back to him that I am amazed that he is amazed. I thought that he knew what everyone else knows: on these benches, we are a democratic party. When the country gives a mandate to a Government to do something, we immediately recognise that. We are saying that this is the way chosen by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to help this group of old people. But we are entitled to say that, if the Government intend to do it their way, they ought to do it adequately.
The hon. Gentleman found himself in difficulty in giving reasons for the £3. It is difficult to argue whether it should be £3 or a higher or lower figure. He talked about the balancing of interests, but, with respect, he said nothing new and, obliquely, he conceded many of the arguments advanced from these benches today.
This is the formula decided by the present Government for helping this generation of non-pensioners. It is their formula, and we thought it right for them to justify that formula. On the basis of the amount that they have fixed, we do not consider that they have justified it.
Under this paving Amendment, we have had a debate on Amendments 1 and 2. We do not think that the Government have made their case. If they are to do it in the way that they propose in this Clause, they should do it properly. Nevertheless, it is a matter for them. The system that they propose throws up all kinds of inequalities among other groups in the community. But it is their formula, and it is one for which they have a mandate. I recommend to my hon. Friends that we do not press the Amendment to a division.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: There have been accusations of cynicism from the benches opposite because some of us opposed the Private Member's Bill. However, we cannot be compared with some who were in Government before 1964 and opposed it then, changed their minds subsequently and have now changed them again.
I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of a reply that he gave me when I was discussing an Amendment which he and his hon. Friends moved to the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill. It was an Amendment designed to cut sickness benefit, and I was extremely indignant about it. The hon. Gentleman said:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the procedures of this House. In order to have a debate on a subject in Committee, an Amendment has to be tabled. I hope that at this stage, while the debate is still taking place, he will not read more into our Amendment than just that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 26th February, 1970, c. 396.]
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out, we have had to adopt this procedure to get an Amendment on the Notice Paper. In the case of the present Bill, that has been extremely difficult.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that this was a Measure which, like many others, would help those in the greatest need. It is nothing of the kind. However, I congratulate the Government on going over to the idea of universality—of having basic pensions without means testing—which is different from what hon. Gentlemen opposite were saying throughout their period in Opposition and during the election campaign.
If there is to be a universal pension—a pension paid not out of contributions but out of income tax—then I recommend to the Government that in their plans for the future they consider, particularly for the pensions Bill the year after next, the question of paying pensions by this means. It may come as a shock to hon. Gentlemen opposite to note this sum of £3 in the Bill because many Conservatives, including candidates, thought that the sum would be £5. Their repeated assertions that social security should be concentrated on those mainly in need appeared nowhere in the Conservative manifesto. I suggest that it was not included because it would have clashed with this Measure.
Contributions have for years been an integral part of this type of legislation, mainly because my hon. Friends and I, along with the T.U.C. and many others, have felt that a pension paid out of contributions was preferable to one paid out


of taxation. If people who have paid contributions for perhaps a lifetime see that those who have not paid contributions nevertheless receive pensions, they may revise their ideas about from where the money to pay for pensions should come.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 in line 4, after "prescribed" insert "current".
In view of the discussion which took place on the last series of Amendments, it will be clear that this Amendment is a probing one. As I said earlier, a pension or grant payable by the Treasury is fixed at £3 in the Bill. We are told that the wives of such claimants will be entitled to £1 17s., but more vaguely the provision goes on:
… and provision may be made by regulations for the payment of widow's benefit or a retirement pension at prescribed rates to a widow whose husband was over pensionable age on 5th July 1948 or to a woman whose marriage to a husband who was over pensionable age on that date was terminated otherwise than by his death.
Why is no figure stated for the widow? Is it the intention, for example, in the circumstances which will obviously be defined by the regulations, that the widow will be entitled to a sum other than £3? In other words, may we be given some information about the regulations?

Mr. Dean: I am glad to respond to the questions of the hon. Gentleman because I know that the Committee would like to hear what the Government have in mind about the regulations and the provisions for widows. It may be helpful, therefore, if I gave an indication of the main provisions which we have in mind for these regulations.
First, a widow whose last husband was alive on 5th July, 1948, and was then over 65 and who died when she was over 50 will be eligible to a widow's pension of £3 a week until she is 65, and thereafter to a retirement pension at the same rate.
The second category is the woman whose husband is eligible for a pension under the new provisions. She will, on his death, be able to qualify for a widowed mother's allowance, a widow's pension or a retirement pension, as appropriate, at £3. In other words, she will

be in broadly the same position and have the same rate of benefit.
The third category is the woman who is or has been divorced when she was over 60 to a man who was over 65 on 5th July, 1948. She will qualify for a pension of £3 a week. These are the three main categories in whom the hon. Gentleman is interested. We propose that they should qualify for pension at £3, so that the general effect of these proposals is that, apart from the rate of benefit, widows and divorcees shall be put in a position which would have obtained if their husbands had been insured.
Hon. Members may be interested in our proposals regarding the residence qualification. To be eligible, we propose that an existing widow or divorcee will have to satisfy the general residence condition; that is, of residence in the United Kingdom for at least 10 years since 1948 and ordinarily resident at the present time. In addition, the husband must have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom when he died or when the marriage ended. A woman widowed or divorced in future will qualify if her husband satisfies the residence test.
These are somewhat complicated matters. I hope that my remarks have given an indication of the main provisions we have in mind for the regulations under the Clause.

Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation and I agree with his remarks about the residence qualification. It is right that Treasury payments of this kind should be confined to people who are ordinarily resident in this country; though the payment of a contributory pension does not entirely rely on this type of qualification.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the amount that will be payable to widows under the Clause. If the Government are accepting this formula, then it seems unsatisfactory that widows over 50 should receive a pension of £3 rather than the normal widow's pension. One would have thought that if the Government adopted this sort of formula, they would have thought it preferable to have paid pensions to widows and others under the Clause at the normal standard rate.

Mr. Dean: The same arguments apply here as applied in the earlier debate.

Mr. O'Malley: In view of the explanations given by the Parliamentary Secretary, for which we are grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Sillars: The Parliamentary Secretary made a reasonable debating point earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) talked about the figure of £7 million as against the sum of £12 million. It is fair, though it is not a debating point, to point out that this is an element of Government expenditure which is unlike most elements of most Government revenue expenditures. Most new revenue expenditure falls short in the first full year and grows thereafter, but in this case we have full expenditure in the first full year, and it falls thereafter. It would not, therefore, be fair to say that we want to double the amount. There is not a great deal of money involved here.
The Government's view seems to be that less than the full amount has to be given in order to maintain the equity between contributory and non-contributory pensioners, but perhaps in another place the rate could be made £4 with a pro rata sum for married couples. I am most concerned about the number on supplementary benefit who will not get one penny extra. Members of the Conservative Party will be regarded as people who practise grave deception on thousands of old people if they do not give them more than £3.
We all know of the enormous pressure there now is on the limited resources of people on supplementary benefit. It is they who are most under pressure now. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to take note of the points I have made, which are not meant as debating points but as a serious request for a contribution towards meeting the needs of this section of people.

5.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: It has been said that people on supplementary benefit will not benefit by this Bill. When there is an increase in the cost of living, which

has become a very usual feature of life recently, the amount of supplementary benefit can be raised because that expenditure is controlled by the Government. But a great many of the people who will benefit can be raised because that expen-who are just about at the supplementary benefit level, and comprise the most difficult section of the community to help.
They have to meet such additional expenses as increased rates, fuel, heating, electricity, gas, food, bus fares, and all the other items that have contributed to the rise in the cost of living. They may be living on small investment income, or on an occupational pension which was awarded very many years ago, when in many instances such pensions were not the size they now are. Those to whom I often refer as living on small fixed incomes are the hardest hit when it comes to coping with the increased cost of living. People on supplementary benefit today may not benefit by this £3 provision, but if the cost of living fails to be controlled and inflation continues, the Government can help them to meet that increase.
It is very important to make a distinction between those people, and the others on small fixed incomes. The Government can take action to help those on supplementary benefit, but the section on limited income are those who are worse off. They have the greatest anxiety in life, because their savings are eroded and they do not know how they will meet the future as life runs today. It is fair that they should benefit more by the Bill than do those on supplementary benefit.

[Sir R. RUSSELL in the Chair]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not want to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in her desperate last-minute effort to clothe this proposition with respectability. I will only say that she has not convinced me.
This is the first opportunity I have had of personally congratulating the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). It is not that I congratulate him to the exclusion of his colleagues, but just that he and I


had a longer acquaintanceship in a Committee which had 20 sittings. While it is not our job to appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties in Government, I hope that he will appreciate ours, in that we have not yet got used to being in Opposition.
I question very much whether the Government have a mandate from the people for this proposal. One of the main points made by hon. Members opposite when in Opposition was that the public did not understand our proposed pensions scheme. In the light of our election experience I concede that they were right. Our pensions scheme was not properly understood, although its principles were excellent. I doubt very much whether many hon. Members opposite know now what they are doing. I do not say that because they are now absent—I would not take advantage of their lack of interest in that way—but I am convinced that they do not know what they are doing.
We hear glib talk of the over-80s, but it is about the over-87s that we are really talking. The Under-Secretary says that the provision applies to widows and says that they will get the widowed mother's allowance. If anyone qualifies for widow's allowance because of the death of a man of 87 I hope that I may be told, because I should like to know the secret of that success. We all know that this is a subject in which all sorts of regulations have to be made so as to deal with individual cases. Here we are dealing with men of over 87. A man younger than that is not on, because he had the right to go into the scheme.
In the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State stated quite lucidly:
Those people who are just above supplementary benefit will get the full gain of the new pension.
Later in that debate, the Under-Secretary dealing with the same point, said:
Nor do we accept that we are giving these pensions regardless of means or need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1011–89.]
Do those words mean that provided a man of 87 satisfies the residential qualification he can just walk in and claim the £3 a week pension? Will any attempt be made to see whether or not he could have been drawing supplementary

benefit? In other words, will there be any income test for anyone over 87?

Mr. Dean: The position is that this is a pension as of right for those who qualify because they were over retirement age at the date concerned; namely, July, 1948.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for that clarification.
I have never taken part in any of these so-called "non-pensioner" debates. I have no knowledge of any constituent who has bothered me about it. Perhaps these people come from the more affluent parts of the country like Bournemouth, where there are some people whose only crime is that they have lived too long. But this is not a priority, by my terms of accountancy, in my constituency.
It seems odd that when obviously people must have considerable capital resources, thanks to the Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Maybe some hon. Members opposite do not know what we did. They might at least be fair and recognise that some of us who know a little about this—[Interruption.]—do not be so arrogant—know perfectly well that the previous Administration made bigger changes in terms of ignoring capital resources than did hon. Members opposite. They should not be so arrogant even though they might have done something in this Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Clause.

Mr. Brown: I thought you said, Sir Ronald, that I was getting a little wild. I do not think I am getting wide of the Clause, because this is relevant. The only point of substance in the Clause is that pensions are now to be given purely on the ground of age without any qualification other than residence in this country. I shall not oppose the Clause, not because it would be unpopular or might be misunderstood, but I think this is a very cheap way of fulfilling an election pledge. Some hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that this is not the section of the community who should have first call on any resources we may have to distribute.
Having had the clarification given that there will be no attempt to query anyone's income, the best thing we can do is to


accept the proposal as gracefully as possible.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Survivors from the 28 skirmishes will know how seriously concerned I am about the root of entitlement. Until we are clear on the precise definition of entitlement we shall not be able to make a serious advance in perfecting our Welfare State. I am still not perfectly clear whether the pension for the over-80s is to be given because of their citizenship or because of their special needs as a group of people who are particularly defenceless at the end of their lives. We certainly have got away from the contributory principle and that I take the opportunity of welcoming.
In this Bill we are making a start, but we certainly have not finished our deliberations on the question of entitlement. I am sure that we shall have many opportunities of working together to consider that problem much further. I strongly support what my hon. Friends have done in bringing the Bill before the House in this way and precisely in this form.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said, it seems that there is very much a question of priorities here. Although one's heart bleeds for those very old people, at all events if they are destitute, or almost destitute, they are able to apply for relief from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The people most in need are those not eligible even for supplementary benefit because of being in regular work. Possibly the most difficult area is the children of people in regular work and not able to earn enough to keep their families above what we define as the poverty line.
Although one could sympathise with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) in his view that one should give more, we have to do a painful balancing act here, and I think the Clause should stand as it is.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate. I must ask the Minister for some clarification. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said, one

has to be 65 if a man and 60 if a woman in the second part of 1948 to qualify for benefit. That is likely to restrict the operation of this benefit to the type of recipient which the Bill has in mind. Therefore, I am anxious to ascertain the reason for the departure from the Conservative Party's philosophical attitude to all these benefits, which was based on selectivity.
We have been told time and again that any benefits should go to those who are in need, and that that should be determined by an incomes test. Time after time we have asked: What about an incomes test for benefits which the farmers get? I am keenly anxious to learn how the Minister relates the provision in this Clause of a direct grant without any reference to the income of the individual concerned. In many respects it is dangerous to depart from the principle of contributory pensions. If one does so in other spheres it obviously creates many contradictions in our efforts to provide for those who are in need of reasonable security in days of economic adversity.
I hope that it is clearly understood that while an exception may be made in this case we still believe principally in the basis of contributions. If recipients do not contribute to any financial pool operated in the form of different benefits to different categories of recipient, such benefits are bound to fall on taxes, directly or indirectly.
I was concerned to hear the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) say that he was glad we had departed from contributory pensions in this sphere. I think that a dangerous tendency for any Government. I hope that the Minister will stand by the principle of contributory benefits. I have heard it argued time after time, both when I was in Opposition earlier and when I was on the Government side, that the Conservatives continually opposed granting aid to any section of society without any form of incomes test. A degree of selectivity as a yardstick was always their argument. They argued that we should be satisfied that those who required benefits did not have sufficient income to meet the ordinary needs of life. The same type of philosophical argument was heard about housing subsidies, but in this case there is a complete somersault


and a departure from the attitude of giving benefits only to those whom Conservatives believe need them, only those selected because of the inadequacy of their income to maintain a normal standard of life.
I ask the Minister whether this departure from that principle of selectivity in this case is to be the general approach to the administration of many benefits to recipients in our society. Will he give some idea how many are likely to benefit from this provision? I should also like to know whether there is to be a diminishing effect in the administration of such a benefit and when he expects that benefits of this nature—direct grants to people who have not contributed—are likely to be terminated. If this principle is admitted and the precedent is created of giving benefit to those who have not contributed, why should they not be current benefits? If the principle is good enough, why should not the current standard operate? I look forward to the reply by the Minister.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Perhaps I can comfort the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) if he is anxious about people who have made no contributions to the National Insurance Fund being given benefits. They have made no contributions to the fund, but that does not mean that they have made no contribution to society. If society feels that in the course of their lives these people have contributed to society, we have a debt, and it is right that we should repay it while we can.

Mr. Marks: I have some questions about the operation of the publicity in connection with the scheme. I have been trying hard to find people who will benefit from the scheme. Last night I found one. She is the widow of a northern industrialist and a former Member of the House of Lords. So far, this is the only one I have come across.
There are three categories. Will it be necessary in all cases for these people to make application? The first group is obviously the over-87s who did not participate in the pre-1948 insurance scheme and who could not participate in the existing scheme. They will be over 87 if men and over 82 if women. Must the

second group mentioned by the Secretary of State—those who had the opportunity to enter the 1948 scheme—be over 87 if men or over 82 if women to qualify for benefit under the Bill? The third group comprises those whose benefit at the moment is less than £3 because they have not had a high average number of contributions. Does this group also comprise only those who are 87 or over if men and 82 or over if women? When the pension is less than £3, will social security offices automatically bring it up to £3 without any application?

Mr. Robert Hughes: There are at present 400,000 people receiving benefit but less than full benefit because their contributions were deficient. In many cases their deficiency of contribution did not arise from any deliberate action. It arose through genuine misunderstanding or because the person concerned worked abroad for a period and then returned. I am at present dealing with a case concerning someone who left the country, who returned, and who was advised that he did not need to pay back contributions. He accepted the advice in good faith. The husband of the woman whose case I am dealing with died. Because she has received a lump sum insurance benefit, she is prepared to pay the back contributions now that she has been told that her widow's pension will be affected, but the Ministry refuses to accept the back payment because it is now six years after the event.
I agree that such details can be dealt with only in discussion with the Ministry on particular cases. If the contributory principle is no longer sacrosant, I urge that individual cases be dealt with much more sympathetically and much more flexibly. Where there is a bona fide reason for a deficiency of contributions, this should be taken into account and the full pension paid.
I agree that at this early stage in my parliamentary career the number of such cases who have approached me is small, but there are 400,000 people in this invidious position who are now being dealt with differently from the ordinary over-80s. Compassion for the elderly and those in need should not be fettered by age barriers. I hope that we can have a general assurance before we allow the Clause to stand part.

Mr. McGuire: One important thing which has emerged during the debate is that the contributory principle is not being breached seriously. The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said that he was glad that it was being breached, but it is important for it to be emphasised that it is not being breached, because the only people who will receive this small pension are those who had no chance to contribute.

Mr. Dean: indicated assent.

Mr. McGuire: The Minister agrees with me, but my colleagues seem to disagree. As I understand it, this pension will be payable to a man if he is at least 87 and a woman if she is at least 82. Such people had no choice about contributing to the scheme introduced by the 1948 Act; they could not contribute.
In explaining the tortuous logic about the £3, the Minister was imprisoned by the contributory principle; if they had thrown it overboard, the Government could have given the normal old-age pension of £5; but they were limited because they had to have regard to those who had contributed, albeit that their contributions were deficient. The Minister said in reply to an important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) that the only people who have a deficient contribution record and who will benefit under the Bill are those who were drawing the deficiency allowance and who were a certain age. In other words, anybody who had the choice to contribute but did not will not have his pension made up.
Thus the Tories have rewarded in a very poor way the old people who have made a principle out of not rushing for benefits to receive which they have to make a claim on a means test basis—a principle which is much to be admired. Many of them could have got the full amount of supplementary benefit. What has stopped them has been their pride. They are now to receive £3. I am not one to over-gloss the importance of pride of to demean it. People who draw the supplementary benefit can get the £5 plus the nourishment allowance, and so on. These people are to be given £3—less than people who have not contributed and who can claim the full amount, people whom my party gave the oppor-

tunity to have £800 in capital before suffering any diminution in benefit.
The saddest thing that happened to me and to those whom I represent was the defeat of the Labour Government, which had a policy to introduce a proper pension scheme which would benefit the people in years to come and which would have abolished the whole concept of supplementary benefits and the like. If the Tory Government continue to give benefits like this, I look forward with apprehension to the day when they introduce the Family Allowances Bill, because if this is a sign of the times we are in for a very rough time indeed.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dean: I am glad that no hon. Member has opposed the Clause. There has been a general welcome, with some criticisms, but no outright opposition, and I am glad of that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) for his kind remarks about me and his references to the battle which we had in the last Parliament. I was pleased that he made the great admission that the Bill which we were then discussing was complex and difficult to understand. I assure him that we shall do our utmost to avoid that weakness in the proposals which we shall in due course bring forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) is, and has been for a long time, the great battler in the House for the fixed-income groups, and I was glad to hear her say that she regarded this as a useful, albeit modest, Measure to assist that section of the community. I have no doubt that she will keep their problems, of which we are well aware, constantly before the House.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) referred to those same problems, saying that he felt that the people most in need would receive no benefit. Perhaps he has forgotten that the rates of supplementary benefit are to be increased in November, to coincide with the introduction of this new pension, so that those fully on supplementary benefit will gain the increases which are to come into operation then.

Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that during the General Election—I certainly had it put to me—the Conservatives insisted that by November it


would not be worth much anyway? He is now contradicting what his friends in the country said at the election.

Mr. Dean: What was said, and what is still true, is that the increase due to operate in November is very necessary because of the rapid rise in the cost of living which has taken place, notably during recent months under the Labour Administration. We hope to be able to do something to moderate that.

Mr. O'Malley: Mr. O'Malley rose—

Mr. Dean: I have many question to answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come in later if I do not deal with the point which he wishes to raise.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) asked about publicity and, in particular, wanted to know how many people we were likely to have no contact with at the moment. The answer is that anyone who is now receiving a benefit from our offices, be it supplementary benefit or insurance benefit, should be known to us. The arrangements for publicity will be primarily directed to the people who are receiving no benefit and in respect of whom we have no records.
Broadly speaking, any man now over 87 and any woman now over 82 may well be in the category likely to benefit, and I hope that any hon. Member who knows such people and knows that they are not in touch with us now will ensure that their names are fed in so that we may see whether they are entitled. This will immensely help us to achieve our target of speedy payment of benefit; namely, early in November at the same time as the new supplementary benefit increases are due to come into effect.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) asked how many people were concerned here. The answer is about 100,000. We do not know exactly, for the reason I have just given.
Several of my hon. Friends, as well as hon. Members opposite, asked what effect this Measure had on the contributory principle. It does not breach the contributory principle. I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, that this is a once-for-all operation to deal with the particular problem of these very old people who, we feel,

are in need and who, in some cases, were not prepared to come forward to obtain supplementary benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked whether the Government intended to deal with other needy groups. We certainly do. He mentioned the lower in-income families among whom there is family poverty. That is one of the obvious problems. This is merely the beginning, the first part of a three-leg Measure, and others will be unfolded, to try to bring the maximum assistance we can to those sections of our community who are in need and for whom, I am sure, both sides of the Committee wish to see more effective provision made.

Mr. Marks: Will anyone below 87 be eligible to claim in either of the first two groups mentioned by the Secretary of State, and will it be people below 87 as well as those above who will receive the £3, whether they have reduced contributions or not?

Mr. Dean: That will depend on the categories in which they are. If they are single people, or married couples of which either the husband or the wife is eligible through being the right age, they should be eligible. There are certain cases of widows to be covered. We propose to make provision, for example, in cases—there may be some—where the husband was not eligible on age grounds but the wife was, so that she will be covered for the dependant's rate. The answer, therefore, is that there will be some cases in respect of which the age laid down will not necessarily be a bar to those below it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AGED 40 TO 50

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'at that time was' and insert:
'is at the time of payment'.
This raises again a matter which we discussed when this proposal was originated. We debated it at some length in the


Standing Committee, so one need not go over the ground in detail now. The purpose of the Clause is to do away with the hard edge which has been felt for some years to be a cause of injustice. It does away with the problem of the widow who becomes a widow at age 49—perhaps, even approaching her 50th birthday—and who up to now has not been eligible for any benefit whatever. If her husband had lived, perhaps a fortnight or a month longer so that she passed her 50th birthday, she would have been eligible for pension.
Everyone has regarded that as unsatisfactory and has wanted something done, so we welcomed this innovation when it was brought in by the previous Secretary of State, and we welcome it again now. There is, however, still an element of hardship or, at least, anomaly in a system which gives pensions of different amounts to different people on account of widowhood, the different amounts being determined simply by reference to their age. The figures proposed in the Bill are that the woman who becomes a widow at age 40 has a pension of 30s. a week and one who becomes a widow at age 50 receives a pension of £5 a week. The difference is substantial.
Although we are glad that those widowed at 40 will have 30s. we should look ahead to see what is likely to happen with the passage of time. Before too many years have elapsed, there may well be a state of affairs in which two widows, both of whom have been widowed for a number of years and both of whom are the same age, receive different pensions. I take the example of two widows both aged 58. If one has been a widow for 18 years, as the Bill stands she will still be eligible for a pension of 30s. a week, but if the other has been widowed for only eight years, as I read it, she will be eligible for a pension of £5 a week.
Looking at the matter with a fresh eye, one must ask whether it is easy to define precisely why society should give such different pensions to two people whose circumstances are almost identical, that is, both aged 58 and both widows.
This leads one to ask: if there has to be a difference in the treatment of those two people, which of them is most deserving of the higher pension? One might

say that the woman widowed at the younger age was forced to re-enter employment at a time when she had been away from employment less long, so that, presumably, it was easier for her to pick up the threads once again and find for herself an established career after her husband's death. Possibly, therefore, it may be said that she is less deserving of consideration.
But it is easy to make the precisely opposite case. One could say that if she has been out on her own in the world for a longer period she has probably more years during which she has been obliged to draw upon such savings as she may have had or inherited from her husband, a longer period during which it will have been hard for her to accumulate savings, and a longer period for the household necessaries which she inherited from her husband to wear out and need be replaced.
Therefore, I feel that the ideal at which we should aim is that after-50 widows should have the same pension. In a written reply to a Question which I asked on 15th May I was told that this would cost £20 million, which is a substantial sum. It makes me hesitate about whether we could amend the Bill in this way now.
But it is necessary to give the subject an airing. We probably do not have to take a decision on the matter now, because the problem with which I am dealing is one that will emerge only over the years. If my hon. Friend is prepared to concede, as I hope he will, that the point I am making is not altogether unreal and deserves to be looked at further, I shall not want to press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I have considerable sympathy for the Amendment, and I support the quest of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for information. I agree that unfairness is inevitable in any scheme where we have to draw a line, as we shall do, albeit at a less harsh and abrupt line than in the past. But I believe that an arrangement whereby the pension can be scaled up as the widow approaches the age of 50 is possible. Has this been considered?

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington,


South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) for raising an important point about the so-called scaled down widows' pensions which are proposed. I readily acknowledge that we have taken the provision from a Bill brought forward by the previous Administration, and we are grateful for the work they did on that.
The main reason why I find it rather difficult to agree with the point my hon. Friends are making is that the main intention behind the Clause is to try to get rid of the disparity, the hard line, which now exists between the widow who is just over 50 and is entitled to the full rate of widow's benefit and does not have to pay contribution, and the woman of just under 50 with no dependent children, who is entitled to no pension and must pay the full contribution. The scaled down pension is really intended to try to get rid of that hard line.
It may be said that we have merely shifted the line from 50 to 40, but by providing a scaled down pension at 40 we have tried to deal with that problem. That is very largely the reason why we feel that it is right to have the scaled down pension and to maintain the scaling down arrangements when the widow reaches 50. If we adopted the suggestion made by my hon. Friend we should be re-creating the sharp disparity, but doing it in a slightly different way.
Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South acknowledged, the effect of the proposal would be to add about £8 million to the cost of the provision—an increase of about 60 per cent.
Perhaps it would help put the matter in context if I said a word about the contribution proposals, which I think my hon. Friend would feel are very relevant in judging whether the scaled down pension is appropriate.
5.45 p.m.
We propose that there shall be a contribution option for the widows who will be entitled to this pension. This is an important provision. The contribution option will apply to the flat-rate contribution but not to any graduated contribution which widows may pay. In other words, it will put them in the same position as widow pensioners now.
We feel that it is appropriate to give this choice, first, because it is in line with the existing widow pension provision, and, second, because if there were a compulsory contribution some widows would gain very little from it. I am thinking largely of the widows at the top end of the scale; for example, a widow at the age of 49 who would be entited to a pension of £4 13s. would be expected as an employee to contribute 15s. a week for very little additional benefit.
We also feel that it is right wherever possible to give a choice, and for many widows the contribution is a very big burden. That has been one of the grievances of the present "30s. widow."
If the widow chooses to pay the contribution she will qualify for the short-term benefits, but the rate will be reduced to take account of the widow's pension she is already receiving. Any earnings-related supplements will be dealt with under the normal rules. If she decides not to pay, she will not qualify, although here again the earnings-related supplement will be available under the existing special rules.
The position with regard to the retirement pension is somewhat different. The flat-rate benefit payable depends on the widow's average contribution record over her insurance life, but she may use her husband's record over the period up to the date of his death. The widow who chooses not to pay will qualify at least for a retirement pension at her widow's pension rate.
Widows under the age of 45 would usually qualify for rather more than this by means of the husband's record alone. For example, a woman widowed this year at 40 will qualify for a retirement pension of £2 10s.
The widow who chooses to pay the contribution and whose husband's record is also complete will qualify for a £5 pension on retirement. This will replace the widow's pension.
The Committee will see that in bringing into context the scaled down pensions that we propose it is also valid to take account of what we regard as the valuable contribution option which we are proposing these widows should have.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: In view of the very full way in which my points have been dealt with, I should like simply to


thank my hon. Friend for his explanation and to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. O'Malley: The Under-Secretary was helpful when he explained some of the provisions of the Clause in response to the Amendment. The Opposition welcome the Clause. As the Under-Secretary pointed out, this formula for providing a widow's pension to women without children and left widowed between the ages of 40 and 49 was drawn up and conceived by the Labour Administration and formed a Clause in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, which was considered at length before the General Election.
As not only in this Clause but with other legislation arising from the Department of Health and Social Security and other Departments the Government are using legislation drawn up by the Labour Administration, I remind the Under-Secretary that there is plenty more where that came from. If the Government are short of legislation, there is the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill. It would be a great help if the hon. Gentleman were to explain that, because we know that he understands these things. We look forward to other legislation which has been the brainchild of the Labour Government.
There is a side effect which is inherent in the introduction of scaled-down pensions of this kind. The existing situation is that a widow over 50 qualifies for a normal flat-rate widow's pension of £5. She then has the married woman's and widow's contribution option, and she may elect to pay 7d. to be covered for industrial injury. If she does that, she is not entitled to unemployment or sickness benefit. There would be no point in her paying for such unemployment or sickness benefit, because under the overlapping benefit regulations she would not gain financially. It has therefore been a valid and useful argument for a widow drawing the full widow's pension and over 50 to say that it would not be worth her while to pay the contribution. Such women have opted to pay merely the 7d. industrial injuries contribution.
Different considerations will apply to the group of widows who are now to get scaled-down pensions. Let us consider the example of a woman without children and left widowed at 41. She would receive as a widow's pension not £5 but 30s. Generally speaking, such a woman would be obliged to seek employment, unless she had some other form of widow's superannuation, and those of us who examined this matter in detail in the last Parliament know how inadequate widowhood cover often is, even with some of the better superannuation schemes.
She would be faced with the choice that she could exercise her right—and it remains a right—to pay the flat-rate contribution, or opt out and pay merely the 7d. in respect of industrial injuries. In many ways, that woman does not have much of a choice. If she falls out of work, she will not be properly covered by a pension of 30s. for unemployment or sickness benefit, and she would therefore be most unwise to choose not to make the contributions.
The contribution will often be not much use to the younger childless widow with a scaled-down flat-rate pension and the contributions would represent quite a burden to her, for a woman earning £450 a year would pay 15s. a week and a woman earning £630 a year would pay 18s. 1d. a week, if she was not contracted out. As we have now created this new graduated and reducing widow's pension scheme according to age, for as long as the Government continue with a flat-rate contribution system there will be a need not for the option not to pay but for a system of contributions by which the widow is allowed to pay reduced National Insurance contributions, so that if she becomes sick or unemployed she is able to draw not 100 per cent. of the relevant benefit but an amount which, together with the widow's pension, would take her to the same minimum level of, for example, the widow of more than 50 drawing full unemployment or sickness benefit.
There is a difficulty. The hon. Member knows that whatever one does with National Insurance provision, one always creates new and sometimes difficult problems. The problem would be eased if contributions were earnings related rather than flat rate. I give an example from a booklet which we used a great


deal in a previous existence and which was entitled "The New Pensions Scheme". With contributions at 6¾ per cent. of relevant earnings, a woman on £450 a year and now paying 15s. a week would pay 11s. 7d., whereas the woman earning £12 a week would pay 16s. 5d. instead of 18s. 1d. A system of earnings-related contributions, unlike a flat-rate contribution system, does not bear most heavily on the lower paid, among whom one must number many women.
Until such time as a system of earnings-related contributions is introduced, and I understand that to be the Government's intention, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether there is any way of introducing a provision in the Bill to provide for the payment of lower contributions by women who are widowed in these circumstances. Otherwise, major problems will be posed, problems which could be avoided by legislation which it ought not to be too difficult to introduce into the Bill.

Mr. Dean: I should not like the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) to think that because we have adopted one or two of the provisions of a Bill in the previous Parliament, he can draw conclusions from that. We have made it abundantly clear on many occasions that the largest part of a Bill which many of us spent many hours discussing in the last Parliament is now dead and buried.
The hon. Member mentioned the example of a widow widowed at 41 who would be entitled under the Clause to a pension of 30s. She is the type of widow who would be more likely to benefit by paying the additional contribution and thus getting the additional benefit than the woman widowed at 49 who would be quite close, only 7s. short, to the full rate. This problem is more readily dealt with with a fully earnings-related contribution system than with a flat-rate system. This is a point which we shall bear in mind in our studies of the future of our National Insurance arrangements, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it applies much more to a future Bill than to this Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: The Minister is right to say that part of the legislation which we discussed in the last Parliament relating to national

insurance is dead and buried. However, it is dead and buried only while the Conservatives are in office. Further, the problems are not dead and buried, though the people experiencing them may be dead and buried before the Government solve them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) was unduly modest when he pressed for the Government to consider that part of the problem which is left untouched by the course they propose. In so far as there is a case for paying a pension to a woman who is widowed between 40 and 50, to ensure reasonable justice as between one widow and another—indeed, to ensure justice between widows and spinsters—consideration should be given to the degree to which National Insurance payments and benefits relate to the ability of widows and spinsters in this age band to meet these insurance payments.
The Clause ensures that an anomaly will be created which we shall have to solve in years to come. I refer to the anomaly between women widowed at, say, 40 and those widowed at, say, 48. One will have a lower pension but will have a greater necessity to make higher flat-rate contributions. From my experience of talking with women of this kind, I cannot see them accepting a lower pension very lightly. They must insure themselves against the inability to earn at times of unemployment or sickness by paying a higher percentage of their income when they are working, compared with women who are widowed later in life and who will receive a higher pension in any event.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

FURTHER RELAXATION OF CONDITIONS FOR WIDOW'S PENSION AND FOR WIFE'S RETIREMENT PENSION BY VIRTUE OF HER HUSBAND'S INSUR- ANCE

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friends and I welcome the introduction of this part of the Bill, which ends the three-year


rule. A considerable debate took place when, in the last Parliament, we debated the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, and the provisions in this Measure follow closely on what we proposed in that Bill. It is clear that the three-year rule is producing hardship and that we must try to resolve the problem.
I rise merely to question the Minister about the position of the widow who has been twice married. We discussed this issue on the previous Bill. I understand that a widow could marry a man over 65 and have a right to a pension on the contributions of her second husband because he died within less than 12 months although she has been married to a first husband with a full contributions record. This is a complicated matter and affects a small section of the community; women who have been married twice.
When we discussed the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill in Committee I said, in response to probing from the present Under-Secretary:
We are aware of the problem, and we know that there are difficulties attaching to it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that before the regulations are issued, we shall examine the matter very carefully to see what can be done to help the women whom we have been discussing".
I then said:
… I assure the Committee that I am seized of the point about what may well be a small group of widows, who could do rather badly. Of course I give the undertaking that we are prepared to look at this before the regulations are issued. I do not think that there is any difference between the two sides of the Committee on this minor point".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 17th March, 1970; c. 687.]
I would like a similar undertaking from the present Under-Secretary. We wish to ensure that the problems of the twice-married widow are carefully looked at before the regulations are issued to ensure that hardship is not caused because of the operation of the one-year rule.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) for raising this point, which we discussed on an earlier occasion. I cannot be certain, off the cuff, whether this provision can be dealt with by way of regulations under the Clause. However, I assure him that the point will be looked at and

that I will let him have any further information on the subject that is available.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 16, at beginning insert:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 7 of this Act all payments under this section shall be payable out of the National Insurance Fund.

The Temporary Chairman: I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: No. 5 in line 20, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
No. 6 in line 21, leave out 'of' and insert:
'to be prescribed of not less than'.

Mr. Jones: In view of some of the procedural difficulties which we experienced when dealing with the first series of Amendments, perhaps I should indicate that Amendment No. 16 is a paving proposal designed to enable us to discuss the amount of the weekly rate of attendance allowance. We are not anxious to add fresh burdens to the National Insurance Fund, and I stress that this is merely a quaint procedure to enable us to discuss the subject.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are probing in so far as we want to know how the Government view the level of the attendance allowance; and perhaps they will give us their feelings on how matters will develop in the immediate future.
We are anxious to ensure that the attendance allowance does not drop, whatever the circumstances, below £4. Indeed, this sum is, we believe, inadequate and should be increased by way of regulation rather than by having to wait for a new Measure. My hon. Friends are naturally pleased with the Clause in that it is part of our old Bill. One might say that it was fathered by David Ennals, who has deep personal experience of handicapped and severely disabled people and a close understanding


of this subject. I take it that the understanding of David Ennals is now shared by almost every hon. Member.
We might pay tribute also to the work of groups like the Disablement Income Group and the Campaign for the Young Chronic Sick, which played a great part in awakening the conscience of the House and the country to the problems of the disabled. So we are pleased that the Government have taken over this part of our Bill. We are sorry that they have not had the wisdom to take over all of it, but we are grateful for small mercies.
The Amendments express the concern of most hon. Members about the amount being paid for the attendance allowance. This subject does not divide the parties. Because it is a small level—it was referred to in Committee on the previous Bill as a foot in the door—we must be careful that we do not add the word "constant" before it. It could not be described as a constant attendance allowance when it is only £4 a week.
The theme of the need to increase the allowance ran through many of the speeches on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who has played a great part in helping the disabled, made this point. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made this point and said that there was a real need for a complete review and a generous increase in the allowance.
Certainly, those of us who were privileged or cursed to spend so many hours in Committee on the previous Bill heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), who played a leading part for the Opposition, suggest that the stumbling block to any increase or extension was Treasury puritanism. Now that his ally and friend the Under-Secretary has had some experience of this puritanism, I am sorry—he must also be sorry—that he has not been able to overcome it. There are some serious problems, because the real value of the allowance could be eroded by three factors—taxation, the passage of time and inflation. The Secretary of State should have the powers—which the House would give relatively willingly—to increase the allowance by regulation.
Taxation was mentioned on Second Reading. One of my hon. Friends was sure that it would not be taxable, but many were concerned at the possibility that it might be. It would be a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Under-Secretary said that this was a matter for the Chancellor. Technically it is, but it is also a matter for the House. If the allowance were taxable, that would be a further reason for the Secretary of State to have these powers.
The time element might also affect the value before any allowance was paid. The Secretary of State said that it would not be wise to suggest that we could hope to pay it before April, 1972. So there are nearly two years to go. By then, what will this £4 be worth? The Secretary of State should insure against this as I have suggested.
6.15 p.m.
Inflation is a favourite theme of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who suggested recently that it was galloping inflation. If that is so, the attendance allowance, small as it is, needs special protection. At least our Bill provided this protection, since it would have given the Secretary of State the power, even duty, in his two-yearly review, to maintain the value of the allowance. This would have ensured that this much-needed allowance was kept in line with any rise in the cost of living. This is one of the dangers of dealing piecemeal with major social problems by picking little pieces out of a comprehensive social security measure.
I am urging the Government, not to accept the Amendments—they were devised only to allow a discussion—but to consider favourably the principles behind them and bring forward an Amendment in another place to ensure that the Secretary of State can increase the allowance or at least maintain its value.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: This series of Amendments are designed not to alter the value of the attendance allowance in the Bill but to lay down for the future the leglislative machinery by which changes will be effected. The view of the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones)


and his hon. Friends is that future changes should be effected not by legislation but by Statutory Instrument. That of course is done with supplementary benefits, but I doubt whether it is, on balance, for this kind of benefit a better way of doing it than by legislation.
There is a certain delusive simplicity about proceeding by Statutory Instrument, but there is, of course, one considerable snag. One can move to amend a Bill. If one does not think that the increase is adequate, and one uses the device which hon. Members are using now of seeking to charge the cost of the provision on the National Insurance Fund, one can move an Amendment. But if we are presented with a Statutory Instrument we can vote only "Aye" or "No", and if an increase that we judge insufficient is put forward by the Government the Committee and the House are in the difficult position of having either to reject the increase or to accept an increase that they regard as inadequate. I therefore differ from the hon. Member in his belief that there are advantages in proceeding by way of Statutory Instrument.
There is a further practical snag. Generally speaking, Statutory Instruments are dealt with at Ten o'clock at night and are subject to a time limit of one-and-a-half hours. When a Bill is in Committee, if the Committee does not like what the Government are proposing the matter can be argued for a considerable time, and the Government can be pressed hard to improve the position. With a Statutory Instrument the Govenment has only to wait until half-past Eleven o'clock at night, and the Question is then put.
I know that in the Bill bought forward in the last Parliament by the right hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Crossman) all National Insurance benefits were liable to be changed by way of Statutory Instrument. Had that Bill come back on Report I should have opposed that provision, for the reasons I have given. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will stand by the provision in the Bill and ensure that future changes are dealt with by legislation.
There is a special reason in favour of that proposition in respect of this benefit. As some of us urged on the Government

last Friday, in the Second Reading debate, this very welcome proposal is only the first instalment of what we expect to be done for the disabled. There will have to be comprehensive legislation on the subject, and I should like to hear anything that my hon. Friend has to say about that. Surely the appropriate place in which to adjust the level of this benefit is in that future Bill, when other provision for the same people is being made. They can be fitted together, whereas if this Amendment is made the Government will have to legislate separately for the disabled in other aspects, and will have to proceed quite separately again by way of Statutory Instrument in order to change the attendance allowance. That will be inappropriate and inconvenient.
How does my hon. Friend see the prospect of future increases in this benefit? Is it the intention that it should be increased whenever the general level of National Insurance benefit is increased? On the other hand, is it—because of its special nature—to be related particularly closely to changes in wage levels, as distinct from the index of retail prices? What is the thinking of the Government about future changes in this benefit? It is a benefit to which many of us attach the greatest importance. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep a benevolent eye on its level and see that it is not eroded by any changes in the economy generally, but it would be helpful if some indication could be given as to the way in which the Government see the future of this benefit, and what their intentions are about increasing it from time to time.
Subject to what my hon. Friend may say it seems to me that the practical method of doing it is very much better effected by legislation than by Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: It seems that I am coming to the same fight with different people in front of me. For a long time I have maintained that if we applied the best technology to disabled people we could keep them out of institutions which are very expensive to maintain. The Minister is looking for methods that will enable him to save public expenditure, and I suggest that he could save money, paradoxically, by increasing the constant attendance allowance.
If that allowance were raised sufficiently, people who are now in institutions and hospitals could manage in their own homes, given two things—first, sufficient money to allow people to look after them at an economic level and, secondly, the benefit of the advanced technology that we possess which enables the extremely disabled to earn their livings and to control their own environments. I am thinking in terms of tetraplegics, paraplegics, and people with advanced multiple sclerosis. They could be kept out of institutions and looked after by their loved ones in their own homes, provided the amount of money made available for attendance was increased.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it would be morally just to do this. I argue that it is also economically sound. I keep quoting to the House a classic case of a man who contracted polio in Malaysia in 1964, and is now completely paralysed, but who is now paying income tax. We are a compassionate society, in the sense that we do not shoot such people. If we do not shoot them we have a moral obligation to look after them adequately as long as they live—and "adequately" means giving them every means to enable them to survive and lead a full life. This country is blessed with technologies that enable people to do this.
The case to which I refer is that of a person who is quite well known. He contracted polio in 1954 and is now using P.O.S.S.U.M. equipment, which enables him to survive on his own. He is now paying income tax, although he is completely paralysed, even to the extent that he cannot breathe. He is therefore also on a respirator. Yet that man is paying income tax.
If our compassionate society had said to that man, "We shall put you in hospital", he would have been in an intensive care unit, costing between £80 and £100 a week. If my mathematics are correct we would have spent £75,000 if that man had not been allowed to go home. I have no doubt that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary would like to do as much as they can for these people, and it is tragic to think that the Financial Secretary who, in the last Parliament, as his party's spokesman on health matters, was dedicated to help these people, will now find himself in

the cold grip of the Treasury, which is prepared to pay lip service to value-analysis and cost-benefit is decidedly slow in producing results.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be bold in this respect and to chance his arm just for once. He will have the support of hon. Members, on the ground that what he is doing is morally right. If he considers this matter carefully he will find that this proposition is economically sound. The remarkable thing is that in all the years that I have argued this case nobody on the Treasury Bench has attempted to shoot me down. Ministers have admitted I am right and have then quietly closed their eyes and walked away. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider this question again and find out how many people who are now in institutions could be transferred to their own homes he would see that in the long run he might make a considerable financial saving for his Department.
6.30 p.m.
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a time bomb ticking away in his Department—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons' Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), and which, I gather, has not yet really been costed. The remarkable thing I want to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman is that that Act started as a piece of blank paper which got 30 Clauses on it, some provided by hon. and right hon. Members on this side and some by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side. We had a long consideration of the Bill, and on no occasion did the House divide or the Committee on the Bill divide, and there was not even a Division in another place. That tends to show the universal acceptance of the concept behind that Act. If that Act is to be made a living reality constant attendance allowance will have a very large part to play indeed, and I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, in looking at his books, to consider whether or not he would be better off increasing the disability allowance, which would be of tremendous benefit to the disabled and which, at the same time, might enable him to save money for his Department.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I think it was an eminent Russian who promulgated the doctrine


of constant revolution. One might say of this Bill that it is a product of constant lifting. Two of the provisions of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons' Bill went to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man), and I am very glad that he included those two provisions in his National Superannuation Bill. It is argued that many of the provisions of this National Insurance Bill have been taken from my right hon. Friend, including one of mine. At the same time the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) can say that he is a victim of lifting in that one of the main provisions of this Bill was a provision he advanced in his Private Member's Bill.
Notwithstanding all that, I must emphasise that this is an extremely important group of Amendments. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on the way in which he introduced them. They are Amendments, particularly Amendment No. 6, which permit the necessary prescribing of the amount of the constant attendance allowance. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that this provision must be seen as only part—a very minor part—of an entirely new financial deal for the severely disabled. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman, no less than the Under-Secretary of State, will want to emphasise that this is only one stage towards improving the financial status, and, therefore, the dignity of every one of our severely disable fellow citizens.
It may be argued that if my right hon. and hon. Friends criticise this Clause 4 they are criticising a provision which they were sponsoring in the last Parliament, but this was only one provision—constant attendance allowance was only one provision—of many to improve the financial standing of disabled families. If there had been an invalidity pension, if there had been other provisions put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, there would not have been grounds for criticising the amount of the constant attendance allowance. Of course, if this is to be the only provision financially to help the disabled, then there is a case for subjecting it to the closest possible scrutiny.
There are those who have mentioned the vital importance of ensuring that this is a non-taxable allowance. There have been references from time to time to the Treasury. If there is a mandarin from the Treasury within earshot of this Chamber I would say to him that he must take it from the Committee, both sides of it, that we are determined that the constant attendance allowance shall be a non-taxable allowance.
There is the question of inflation. Amendment No. 6 says that the allowance shall be one of at least £4 a week. Forward-looking Members on both sides are completely committed to the idea of avoiding the erosion of social benefits. The figure of £4 is regarded by many people as unsatisfactory as an isolated benefit, isolated, that is, from the provision of an invalidity pension. I would say to the Under-Secretary of State that I hope he will accept the spirit of Amendment No. 6. I know his very warm personal concern for the problems of disabled people, and I am quite certain that he will regard the £4 as a minimum amount.
One cannot really speak of a figure of £4 as a constant attendance allowance. As many hon. Members pointed out in the debate on Second Reading on Friday, it costs £20 for a 48-hour week to have someone to look after a disabled person in London. The National Campaign for the Chronically Sick has rightly emphasised that there are 168 hours in a week. That is why many people feel that the figure of £4 is derisory, inadequate, indefensible.
I would mention two cases which I particularly have in mind. The first is that of a constituent of mine, a young woman who is old beyond her years; one could never tell her age by her appearance. Her mother is grievously ill, disabled by rheumatoid arthritis; her father has an extremely serious lung condition; her sister is a spastic. At present my constituent works part time; she receives £4 a week from the Supplementary Benefits Commission to enable her to give part-time care to her disabled parents and her disabled sister. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell me how my constituent, who is at present receiving £4 from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will benefit from the attendance allowance of £4?

Mr. Dean: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether his constituent is receiving £4 from the Supplementary Benefits Commission specifically for attendance or as part of a normal scale?

Mr. Morris: It is in fact of the nature of an attendance allowance. The Commission disregards her part-time earnings and allows her £4 a week to enable her better to care for her father, mother and sister.
The Under-Secretary of State said:
The allowance will be added to the requirements of supplementary benefit recipients, who will therefore benefit from it except in so far as their payments from the Supplementary Benefits Commission may already include a discretionary addition for attendance, in which case they will benefit to the extent that the allowance exceeds the amount of the discretionary allowance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1093.]
My constituent receives exactly the same amount as the proposed attendance allowance. I do not expect the Under-Secretary of State to give an answer about a particular case today, but I ask him seriously to look into cases of that kind and to try to preserve the value of benefits at present received by people caring for the severely disabled.
My second case is a man in London whose severely disabled wife is suffering from advanced multiple sclerosis. He receives a payment from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. He points out that he is in constant attendance on his wife and that he is very hard pressed financially. He believes the proposed allowance will be of no benefit to him in that it will be overtaken by what he already receives from the Commission.
These two cases prove that when we have disposed of the Amendments we should not think that we have solved the problem of families with one or more disabled members. I am certain that at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill the Under-Secretary of State or his right hon. Friend will seek to speak as fully as possible about the problems which I have raised. I hope, if possible, he will deal also with the cases which I have mentioned.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: As I have listened to the speakers, it has been difficult for me not to be convinced by each in turn. I was particularly impressed with the argument of the hon. Member for

Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) which was full of good sense. Nevertheless, I am most convinced, as I generally am, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). This is yet another occasion when Parliament should not allow power to pass out of its hands. If legislation is constantly allowed to go through which takes out of Parliament's hands the decision either as to the increase in contributions or the increase in benefits, we shall ultimately lose control of the administration of the Welfare State.
I recognise that the inflation which is troubling us all may soon be held to make this allowance obsolete, and I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary of State has to say about the Government's intentions for periodic reviews of the allowance. It would be a mistake to assume that inflation will go roaring ahead. Parliament has now accepted that fact and hands it to the Department to look after the consequences. The more we oil the wheels of the vehicle of inflation the faster it will go, and the more obstacles we put in the way of inflation by bringing back to the House of Commons the consideration of questions of this kind, the better it will be. We are making a good start with this allowance. If all hon. Members feel the same about the attendance allowance as those of us who are in the Chamber now, it will not be long before there is strong pressure for the Government to increase the amount.

6.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: Different points of view have been presented in this interesting discussion, and I find it difficult to make up my mind whose advice to follow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) expressed a strong view in favour of legislation in Parliament. Although that might be substantially a sound argument, I have been in Parliament a very long time and, having battled over long years even with my own party, I know how easy it is for matters of this kind to get to the bottom of the Cabinet agenda. It rather depends on the power and interest of the Minister concerned. I would be perfectly prepared to follow legislation by Parliament with my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary of


State, but I do not know how firm the Secretary of State could be if he were faced with a Cabinet agenda containing a large number of important national issues, and legislation by Parliament might be a difficult line to adopt.
On the other hand, my right hon. Friend said firmly that we should have to legislate in depth for the chronically sick and disabled. I wonder how long that will take. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, which was sponsored by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) would provide a fine situation for the chronically sick and disabled if its principles were adopted at every level all over the country. It could be argued in the Cabinet that as we have this Act no other legislation is necessary.
I well remember one of my small but, I hope, effective battles for Service widows during the Conservative Administration. I would not like to have to live through that kind of period again.
I am proud to pay tribute to the present Foreign Secretary for his actions in this matter when he was Prime Minister. When he asked me to see him in Downing Street he said, "Irene, are you quite certain you are telling me the truth?" I convinced him that I was telling him the truth, and when I remember all the people who had been battling for the Service widows for many years without effect, I feel that we then made a move forward, though not nearly far enough.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that we should retain these matters within Parliament's control. But legislation so easily gets squeezed out. I have not made up my mind on this matter and I shall await to hear what the Under-Secretary of State has to say. In our peculiar system of legislation nobody ever knows exactly where the Treasury operates. It is one of the weaknesses of Parliament that it is almost impossible to get at the Treasury.
I feel reassured that we at least have at the Treasury two Ministers who are interested in the matters which are now under discussion and I believe that they will be effective there. But they may not necessarily be there for ever. If

they become obstreperous with the Treasury they might be moved to some other positions in Government.
I hope that the constant attendance allowance will not come into the tax system. I would object if it did, and I hope that we can get that matter quite clear.
It would be possible to include the allowance in the automatic survey which now applies to other pension matters. An automatic review every two years gives an opportunity which could not be overridden by the Cabinet saying that it had too long an agenda to consider the matter.
I am not saying that the Treasury is necessarily always wrong, but its priorities might be different. I have tremendous admiration for senior civil servants and the advice which they tender. But senior civil servants never come up to my constituency to see the effect on people of the matters which we are discussing today. Therefore, although good advice may be tendered, the grass roots approach may be missing. As far as I am concerned, the matter is wide open and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say in reply.

Mr. Dean: As always in debates on disability we have had thoughtful, bipartisan contributions from both sides of the Committee. Indeed, governments of all colours in recent years have tried to do more to help the disabled in the community.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) explained that this was a probing Amendment which was put down more to get discussion on this important topic than to press the particular points contained in the Amendment.
I will deal straight away with the point about possible taxation of attendance allowance. It will be recollected that during the Second Reading debate on Friday strong arguments were advanced by both sides that this allowance should not be taxed. Some very hard things were said about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—not about him personally, but in his capacity of presiding over the Treasury. Indeed, we have heard hard things said today about the Treasury. But I am equally glad that tributes have been paid to my


right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends who now occupy offices in the Treasury. It is no accident that every one of them has had direct experience of the social services in quite recent years.
I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that I am authorised to say that in present circumstances the Government accept that the allowance should not be taxed. The intention is that the necessary provision should be made in next year's Finance Bill. I hope that shows that the Treasury puritanism which has sometimes been referred to is not always a fair criticism.
I should like to deal with the procedural point which has been raised as to whether it is better to make any subsequent changes which may be made in the allowance by statutory instrument or by new legislation. I thought that the arguments which were advanced by both my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) with their great experience in these matters carried a great deal of weight. My right hon. Friend made the point that the advantage of legislation as opposed to statutory instrument is that it is possible to amend. Surely when we are starting with a new allowance of which we have all to gain experience, it is an additional reason perhaps in any subsequent changes or improvements which may be made for using this procedure rather than the statutory instrument procedure.
I turn to the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West about the rate. The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who has an effective Act to his credit on the Statute Book which was supported in all parts of the House, said that the £4 was derisory. But I am sure he will agree that it is a good start. A start must be made somewhere. It is in fact the figure selected by the previous Administration as appropriate for this Measure.
We should bear in mind that in a great many cases this will be a cash addition to other benefits which needy disabled families are receiving, such as national insurance benefits of various kinds and supplementary benefit. The Government do not claim that this can

in any sense meet the complete cost of attendance. Of course it cannot. The complete cost of attendance is far in excess of £4, but at least it gives this additional help which may well enable some families, who are possibly finding things difficult, to look after relatives in their own home. It will certainly give them help in fulfilling those needs.
7.0 p.m.
I was asked by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite what the Government's intentions were to what was called the erosion of this benefit. In his Second Reading speech, my right hon. Friend said that this benefit, like any other National Insurance or supplementary benefit, will be reviewed from time to time. It would be surprising if reviews were to take place in all other benefits, which has been the normal course now for many years, and this benefit were to be left out of the reviews. There is no intention on the part of my right hon. Friend to make this benefit the one exception which is not reviewed from time to time.
That leads to the other point put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, namely, whether this can be regarded as a first instalment. Certainly we regard it as a first step in dealing with the cash problems of civilian disability, as it has been called. My right hon. Friend is now studying urgently the whole problem of disability. There is a great deal of work still to be done on it. The hon. Member for Rotherham, who was recently at the Ministry, will no doubt admit that there is a great deal of study still to be done of what the problem really is and, therefore, how best to deal with it.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a great deal of work to be done on the subject. As he knows, it was the intention of the previous Administration to assemble a nucleus of the Attendance Allowance Board in advance of the Royal Assent to their Bill. Is it the intention of the present Administration to set up a nucleus of people to do the necessary work?

Mr. Dean: We very much hope, with the agreement of Parliament, that this Bill will receive the Royal Assent in a matter of weeks. That will enable us


to go ahead with the fairly long process of preparatory work which has to be done before this allowance can be paid. I gladly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe mentioned two cases of people who had given up jobs to look after disabled relatives. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the Committee by explaining our general attitude here, particularly with regard to supplementary benefit. Experience suggests that people who qualify for attendance allowance are, for the most part, cared for by their families rather than by some commercial arrangement, so that there will be no existing exceptional circumstances additions for attendance needs to be taken into account in these cases.
In some thousands of cases where a daughter or another person has to give up work to look after a sick or aged relative, the Supplementary Benefits Commission pays an ordinary supplementary allowance to the daughter without requiring her to register for work as well as, normally, a supplementary pension to the relative. If in such a case the relative qualifies for an attendance allowance, this will not affect the supplementary allowance paid to the daughter. In other words, there will be an increase of £4 in the household's total income. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that in the cases that he has quoted there will be the full increase coming in to those families to assist them with the work that they have with these severely disabled relatives.
I hope that I have been able to deal with the matters raised by both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West said that the intention was that this should be a probing Amendment. In view of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will not feel it necessary to press it to a Division.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman try to give us, fairly quickly, an assessment of the possible saving to his Department of moving out of hospital people who seem to be there permanently and having them taken care of in their own homes, providing that an adequate attendance allowance is paid and technical facilities are made available to enable

them to control their own environments? Are we likely to have some figures on this fairly soon? All the figures that I have suggest that the Government could save money by doing it.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly that is a valid point which we have in mind. It is very difficult to say what savings would be likely. One does not have sufficient information at this point to know how many people in hospital at present could come out were the necessary help available in their homes. If the hon. Gentleman has any information which perhaps we have not got, I would be grateful to have it.

Mr. Houghton: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, although we are not completely reassured about the review of the amount of this allowance. Reference has been made to Treasury Ministers. We have not seen much of them in these debates. We should bear in mind that what we are discussing under this group of Amendments is a charge upon the Exchequer and not a National Insurance benefit. When the hon. Gentleman says that this benefit will be reviewed along with all other National Insurance benefits, it must be borne in mind that this is not a National Insurance benefit. We take it that what he means is that when National Insurance benefits are reviewed all allied benefits will be reviewed at the same time. We should like to feel that this will be tied up with the revision of National Insurance benefits and not left aside.

Mr. Dean: My words were,
… along with National Insurance benefits and supplementary benefits.
That was intended to be a comprehensive phrase.

Mr. Houghton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had it in mind that family allowances, which are another benefit not in the National Insurance scheme, got left for 11 years without improvement when National Insurance benefits were being reviewed approximately every 2 years. We have this little anxiety about the review of this benefit.
The Committee is showing that there is growing interest in the problems of the disabled. That is welcome and overdue. I for one expressed great disappointment


that the Labour Government did not make speedier progress to deal with some of the problems of groups of persons who were not properly provided for under our social service system. However, we were doing bigger things at the time. We were engaged in a review of earnings-related benefits for sickness and unemployment and bringing about some of the bigger changes in the level of National Insurance benefits. It is difficult to do everything at once. However, those who are often referred to as "the forgotten people" must claim the attention of the Committee and the country, because it is among them that the gravest forms of neglect and hardship are to be found.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) said at the outset, we tabled Amendments in this form for the purpose of getting a debate on this subject and do not propose to divide the Committee on them. For one thing, we do not want to transfer this benefit from the Exchequer to the National Insurance scheme. If we did that it would raise the whole question of contributory entitlement. We do not want to do that, so we do not intend to press Amendment 16, which would do precisely that.
Nevertheless, we wonder whether, by the time this benefit comes into payment, it will have lost some of its value. The spring of 1972 is quite a long way off and, when one recalls that the previous Government were talking about an attendance allowance of this level about 12 months ago, one must be conscious of the possibility of the benefit losing its value more rapidly than we would like to contemplate.
We do not want to see this benefit eroded by the fall in the value of money in the next 12 months, so making it less than its present worth. It is small enough, in all conscience, and a great many hon. Members would like to see it higher. Under the Labour scheme it was linked with an invalidity benefit and a number of other benefits were to apply.
It is difficult to envisage the position of the disabled as a whole as we deal with this matter in a piece-meal way as part of our social services. Perhaps it is time we had a charter for the disabled; the disabled person in society, the money benefits that are provided, the facilities

that are made available and the living accommodation and equipment that is needed, to say nothing of the opportunities and jobs that should be available for the disabled. We will not be wholly comforted about the position of the disabled until we can see the whole picture more clearly. I am, therefore, glad that the right hon. Gentleman has much work in hand on this subject.

Mr. Alec Jones: I indicated at the outset that I would not press the Amendment. I endorse everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and we are indeed glad that the Government have accepted that this allowance should be tax free. In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in line 39, leave out 'six months' and insert 'one month'.

The Deputy Chairman: I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 12, in Clause 6, page 5, line 17, leave out 'six months' and insert 'one month'.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I feel obliged to comment that it would have added strength to my Amendment if the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), in whose name Amendment No. 12 stands, had chosen to add his name to it. While we are used to the bell-like tones which carry a ring of sincerity, it would always be welcomed if he would be ready to add his name to certain Amendments which I draft; that is, if he agrees with them. However, I am sure that this Amendment has the support of hon. Members on both sides.
7.15 p.m.
The object of the lapse of time requirement is clear, and it is right that there should be some restriction, for a number of reasons. However, is it necessary for it to be as long as that suggested in the Bill? The period is lifted from the previous Measure, and we went over all this ground in Committee on that occasion. I recall that we were not able to gain our point when we discussed it previously and, when the Bill fell, it contained this six months' provision.
I appreciate the object of the six months' lapse of time requirement; that it is to prevent short-term cases being considered for benefit which are outside the intentions of the Bill. It was suggested on one occasion that a person suffering from influenza might claim to be disabled and in need of a constant allowance. It would, of course, be ridiculous to import short-term matters of that kind into the Bill.
It has been pointed out that we can have no clear idea of the number of people who are likely to apply for this benefit to the Attendance Allowance Board, though the number may be in six figures in the first instance. Obviously not all will be approved, though each will deserve medical attention and consideration. This means that an enormous administrative problem lies ahead, which inevitably points to the fact that a great deal of work is in store if we are to administer the Bill humanely.
Should we strive to extend the definition of eligibility for the attendance allowance or seek to reduce the period of ineligibility for those caught by the Bill? My right hon. Friend may say that both are highly desirable objectives but that neither is immediately possible. He might consider the idea that after six months has gone by, those then approved for the allowance by the Board might be given a retrospective concession for the allowance, which would involve only about £100, which is not a large lump sum for a person who will probably spend the rest of his or her life in a state of very serious disability.
In general, hon. Members are bound to feel the need for more data about this problem of disability. We look forward to the publication at an early date of the results of the inquiries which the present and former Governments undertook into the whole question of disability. When we have been able to study this data our discussions will have more meaning.
I support what was said on an earlier Amendment about the need, which is becoming increasingly obvious, for comprehensive legislation on the whole question of disability. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give his views on the reduction which I propose in the Amendment.

Mr. Alec Jones: I support Amendment No. 7, which was moved so ably by my fellow countryman the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), and naturally I support Amendment No. 12 which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and some of my hon. Friends, including myself. It is almost an accident of fate that we have two Amendments of this type, and their presence on the Notice Paper indicates that on many subjects there is close agreement between the two sides of the Committee, especially in regard to the attendance allowance.
The hon. Member for Kensington, South and I feel that people entitled to draw attendance allowance should be able to draw it at the end of one month rather than having to wait for six months. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we had many arguments about this in Standing Committee in the last Parliament, when his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) said that he was puzzled to find an explanation for the then Government's choice of a period of six months. He told us that he was trying to find our reasoning behind choosing that period. Tonight, however, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I will have support from both sides, and that the Secretary of State will see the wisdom of accepting the Amendment.
We know some of the answers that we are likely to get, because when we were in Government we got them from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) who was the Minister responsible in the Committee. One argument against reducing the period was the administrative difficulty of doing so. My hon. Friend said that a larger number of cases would have to be dealt with. I put it to the Secretary of State that administrative difficulties are not unlike any other sort of difficulties—they exist only to be overcome—and I am sure that with his ingenuity the right hon. Gentleman can find a way of surmounting this obstacle, if it is only administrative.
It is important to realise that often times it is in the early days of a disability that the need is greatest. It is then very often that the disabled person


has to make the most difficult adjustments, which can be physical or psychological or financial, or all three. It is in the early days that we should make the finance available by paying this allowance, small though it is.
I remember in Committee the hon. Member for Garston giving the case of a man who might lose both legs in an accident so that there was an immediate disability, and the immediate needs were likely to be greatest. The question was then posed: why should a man with a degree of disability that is not likely to improve have to wait six months before getting an attendance allowance which he needs, and needs particularly in those early days? His need for assistance of one kind or another could well become less in time as he began to adjust himself, if that were possible, to his disability. The Bill as at present worded would deny that man his allowance just when he needed it most.
It was said in that earlier Committee that if the qualifying period of six months were removed altogether it would cost £5 million initially, with an extra £½ million each year. We do not suggest complete abolition, which means that the cost is likely to be slightly smaller. But cost should not be the main consideration here. The cost would be smaller, but the benefit to those needing the allowance quickly would be very great indeed.

Mr. William Wilson: Very strong words are used in the definition of disablement:
… severely disabled physically or mentally … continual supervision … frequent attention … prolonged or repeated attention …
And, again:
severely disabled mentally or physically … continual supervision …
It is quite apparent from that definition that only the most serious cases will be caught by the Clause. Bearing in mind the severity of the disablement there must be before the provisions of the Clause can be invoked, it is too much to say that disability must continue for six months before the benefit of attendance allowance can be provided. To reduce the period from six months to one month is sensible.
A further point occurs to me. If a person has to wait for six months, it is not possible to foresee at the commencement

of that period that the required disability will necessarily last for six months. There will have to be some thinking back for the purpose of certification. In order to conform with the definition, the question will have to be asked: when did the disability originally arise? If the waiting period is one month, the difficulty of that task is considerably reduced. Administratively, it may be much easier for the Clause to function if the period is reduced, and acceptance of the Amendment is the only human thing to do.

[Mr. PROBERT in the Chair]

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): It is a help in this Committee stage that hon. Members on both sides have been over this course before and so are familiar with what I am about to say. I suppose it is more helpful to them than it is to me. But I must say that the case is put very plausibly. I do not have to meet the argument, which would have been easy to resist, that the money should go to those who are suffering from acute or short illnesses. That case has not been put.
What hon. Members have been saying, with some plausibility, is that where a disability or an illness that lasts six months or longer affects a family or a household, the money should be paid from the first month. But the problem is that, unlike a case put by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), many disabilities will not be completely obvious. It is true that if an individual suffers the tragedy of losing, say, both legs, it is very likely that he will be disabled, unless he dies—and I have to add those words "unless he dies." But we are dealing here with a very wide spectrum of disability, and most of the disabling burdens on individuals will be far less obviously continuous than the loss of two legs by amputation, and it is no good waving aside the problem of evidence or definition as one that ingenuity can overcome.
We have here, by common agreement, the first step in helping the disabled. We are concentrating, and the party opposite concentrated, on the most severe cases. We are seeking to help, by a modest but very useful increase in cash resources,


those households which show that they have to cope with continuing disability of a very severe order. We are at one and the same time reducing the burden of evidence, and reducing, as I shall seek to show, the danger of shock to the individual concerned, by limiting the cash benefit to those who have proved by six months' continuous severe disability and the requirements of attendance laid down in the Bill that they are within this narrow but important first step of our objective.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) said that if the benefit were restricted to those who had been disabled for six months, there would be a real problem in establishing when the six months' period had begun. He is right. There can be some insidious disabilities which creep up on individuals, and in this sort of case we need the help of such an award, but, much as I was attracted by the introduction given to the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), the Committee would be very wrong to dismiss as unimportant the extra cost of trying to make some retrospective payment in cases which establish themselves under the conditions of the Bill. Five million pounds, or something of that order, would not necessarily be spent in precisely the way proposed by these Amendments.
If we were disposing of a larger sum of money it might be that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would wish to do something more in another way. I do not blame hon. Members for probing the implications of this move but I ask them before making a final judgment to consider the financial state of a household during the early months of such a severe disability as we are discussing. There is already the earnings-related provision under the previous Government's legislation that in sickness brings to anyone who has earned above a certain amount an additional benefit. In many cases a severely disabled person will have been in hospital or under treatment with local statutory services.
I accept that there will be hardship in households afflicted by severe disability both before and after the payment is made. It is common ground that the

£4, even tax free, is not nearly enough to compensate for the extra burden on the household. It is not as if there were a magic point when a payment is made and all hardship ceases. I question whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South, with his wide sympathy in this whole field, would wish to divert £5 million to this particular purpose. What could we do with £5 million in other parts of the social services?

Mr. McGuire: There is an important point to which I thought the right hon. Gentleman would come back. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson), gave a graphic illustration of a disability which is very obvious. He mentioned a double leg amputation, and appeared to imply that that is a type of disability which is readily identifiable and where the allowance would be paid. Is that so? Is a double leg amputation that type of disability? I do not think it is. I hope the Committee will not be misled.

Sir K. Joseph: I think the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) was quite right to pull me up because many—including some in this House—manage magnificently with such disabilities. I rook the illustration given by the hon. Member for Coventry, South, and I may have been careless in doing so. The point I made was that there are some visible degrees of disability and at the other end of the spectrum there are some which are invisible.
The proposal by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West might lead to a nightmare dilemma for the family doctor. Suppose a disability was visible after one month and looked like lasting for six months but in that period it killed the patient. Is the family doctor to say to the patient, "We cannot put this in for you because you may not last for that time"? On the other hand, should we adopt the other proposal that there should be a retrospective payment when the six months' eligibility period had gone by? Then we would not be serving the purposes of the Bill because we would be giving a retrospective lump sum benefit which might go to the estate of the deceased individual if he died just after the six months and would not be making a weekly cash additional payment to


help the household to meet its running expenses.
With the best will in the world, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment, which would cause a very great deal of money which they might not think should go in this particular form of benefit to be spent in that way, with all the difficulties that it would raise.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for the very considerate way in which he has dealt with the Amendment. I am sure it would not be fruitful to press the point further in the absence of the data that we must have as to the numbers involved and the types of people likely to be considered by the board eligible for the benefit.
We are dealing here with what ultimately will become a large sum of public money if we begin to deal adequately with the question of disability. I agree that it would be foolish at this moment to commit ourselves to something without having any very clear idea of the consequences. I said when I moved the Amendment that I was afraid we had not the necessary data to see what the

implications were. I feel that all the more now. I think hon. Members opposite probably feel that. As my right hon. Friend said, we have been over all this a few weeks ago. The Labour Party's attitude at that time was that the six months must remain. No doubt the mirror of the stand they took a short time ago was the reason for hon. Members opposite not putting their names to my Amendment.

May we conclude that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee regret that this six months' lapse of time has to remain for the present, but with the proviso that we hope the matter may be reconsidered in due course?

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: Is it the wish of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Houghton: No.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 170.

Division No. 4.
AYES
7.37 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor


Allen, Scholefield
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Hn. Ronald King


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Cocks, Michael
Hooson, Emlyn
O'Malley, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul B.


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Sillars, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Evans, Fred
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Steel, David




Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Watkins, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Strang, Gavin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)



Swain, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Torney, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. John Golding.


Wallace, George






NOES


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Hawkins, Paul
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, W. H. K.
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Biffen, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, R. T.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Braine, Bernard
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rost, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cockeram, Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Sharples, Richard


Coombs, Derek
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooper, A. E.
Kinsey, Joseph
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Simeons, Charles


Curran, Charles
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Dean, Paul
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Loveridge, John
Spence, John


Dixon, Piers
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
McMaster, Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Sutcliffe, John


Fell, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Fidler, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tebbit, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Molyneaux, James
Tilney, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Money, Ernie D.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
More, Jasper
Waddington, David


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Mudd, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar
Wilkinson, John


Gummer, Selwyn
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gurden, Harold
Normanton, Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John
Younger, Hon. George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)



Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Tim Fortescue.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 45, after 'period' insert 'exceeding four weeks'.
We are anxious to secure that the attendance allowance should not cease automatically and immediately on a disabled person's entering hospital but should continue for four weeks. People entering hospital, particularly if it hap-

pens suddenly, as is usually the case with these patients, need time to adjust their affairs and make different arrangements concerning their homes and their lives. Of necessity any immediate loss of income causes difficulty in making new arrangements. The continuation of the attendance allowance for four weeks would enable the adjustments and new arrangements to be made more smoothly.
All of us, whether we are disabled or not, would have to make adjustments and new arrangements if we were unfortunate enough to be admitted to hospital. Such adjustments and arrangements are necessarily more complicated for the severely disabled.
If the £4 attendance allowance is being used to employ someone to assist with day and night attention—the size of the allowance presupposes that the person employed would be employed only parttime—the person performing this difficult and important duty, with little reward, deserves some consideration. I presume that in most cases people performing these functions will be women. They need time to adjust and make their own new arrangements.
If we are to encourage people to give attendance day and night to disabled persons, it is only reasonable to give these people some assurance that they will not suddenly have part of their income removed or reduced. We are not asking for any massive improvement. We are asking for a little more compassion to be shown to the disabled and a little more care and concern to be shown for those who have demonstrated that they are willing to help the disabled.
I cannot believe that the Secretary of State will not be able to accede to this reasonable request. The wording of the Amendment may not be perfect, but the motive behind it should command the support of the whole Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) is exactly right. The Amendment is in purpose admirable. We shall be glad to meet the substance of it. I undertake that, if he will see fit to withdraw it, at the end of what I have to say, the substance will be met by a Government Amendment at a later stage.
The difficulty in the Amendment as drafted is simply that it does not cover the situation when an individual goes into hospital, his benefit continues for four weeks, he comes out, and the next day he goes either back into hospital again or into a local authority home. The hon. Gentleman will agree that we do not want to have a series of four-week continuations of benefit. To meet that point we need to look again at the wording. We entirely accept the argument which the hon. Gentleman put, and

the substance will be met if he will agree to withdraw his Amendment now.

Mr. O'Malley: We are most grateful for the Secretary of State's response. Perhaps I may say that an Amendment designed to meet this purpose would have appeared on the Report stage of the previous Bill, it having been one of the matters which Mr. David Ennals and I discussed during the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman's position is understandable and perfectly correct. He accepts the spirit of the Amendment, and he wishes to provide for this sort of circumstance. We are glad to have his undertaking that an appropriate Amendment will be presented in due course.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am pleased to have the Secretary of State's assurance. If there are technical deficiencies in our Amendment, I can only apologise for them. With great pleasure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

THE ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE BOARD

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 28, at end insert:
'and shall include at least one person with experience of work among and of the needs of the chronically sick and disabled and in selecting any such person regard shall be had to the desirability of having a chronically sick or disabled person'.

The Temporary Chairman: We shall consider at the same time the following two further Amendments:
No. 10, in page 4, line 30, after 'be', insert:
'and of those two one should be employed in social work among disabled persons'.
No. 11, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'and those two or either of them may be'.

Mr. Morris: This is a group of constructive Amendments designed to ensure that there shall be at least one member of the Attendance Allowance Board who knows something of the realities of life


for the severely disabled. Amendment No. 9 is in wording identical to provisions made in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
There are, of course, people who feel that the disabled are not competent to discuss matters affecting their welfare, their housing and their status in society. By enacting the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, we have laid down that, where the interests of disabled people are under discussion, there should be at least one disabled person present.
I am sure the Under-Secretary of State will want to give a favourable response to this group of Amendments. The organisations representing the disabled, in particular, the Central Council for the Disabled and the Disablement Income Group, are most keen that those who know where the shoe pinches should be present when policy discussions take place.
I need not speak at length. The Amendments are introduced with serious intent. It would be illogical not to adopt them when we have made similar provisions, of identical wording, in other legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, South, who cannot be present this evening, feels, as a disabled person himself, that this group of Amendments is extremely important. I am sure that the Attendance Allowance Board would benefit from the presence of at least one member who knew the problem of the disabled at first hand and I commend the Amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I strongly support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). It is appropriate that he should have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), in whom we have a classic example of a disabled person working as a Member of this House, doing so very efficiently, and, what is more, enabling the House to understand something of the problems of disabled people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] His disability helps us to understand these matters better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made a notable contribution on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am glad to hear the hon. Lady endorse what I say, for we worked together very happily on that Bill. It was much to my hon. Friend's credit that not only was he able to tell us something of the problems of those who are completely deaf, but he took up the special needs of the deaf-blind and spoke also of the problem of dyslexia and the reading difficulties suffered by children. Because of his disability in one sense, he was able to speak with conviction and authority on those other afflictions.
Those of us who served on the Standing Committee on that Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe—there are some present now—derived a tremendous amount of information and inspiration from the disabled people who attended upon us. Indeed, we used to have our little private "Whips'" meetings downstairs. I warn the Government of the danger of that sort of thing spreading. Hon. and right hon. Members from both sides used to assemble in one of the rooms downstairs, where we would be given a very good briefing from disabled people about their needs and their problems. As time went on, we acquired considerable understanding and knowledge.
If the Attendance Allowance Board does not, under Statute, have disabled people upon it, it will miss something of great value. From time to time, we consider matters in the House somewhat in isolation, without personal knowledge of the problems involved. The Board would be in a much better situation if it insisted on the presence of a disabled person. The dilemma is that such boards can easily be manned, because large numbers of people like to serve on them, and the right hon. Gentleman will be faced with a problem of choosing. Having to choose from a wide range of people, he will say that the disabled person does not matter. I am sure that the Disablement Income Group, the Disabled Living Foundation or the Central Council for the Disabled would at any time recommend first-class people who are disabled themselves and could speak with authority and conviction for the disabled.
I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I hope that the Government will accept the Amendments. I feel very strongly about the matter. In view of all the consideration that has been given to the production of the Bill, those members of the Government who were concerned with it might have had the idea contained in the Amendments themselves to ensure that the Board would have adequate representation from the Disablement Income Group or any of the other groups which represent the disabled.
A couple of days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) made a most interesting speech on participation. She spoke at great length and in great depth, with particular reference to the social services stressing how important it was that the country should be given the widest possible participation in the work being done through Parliament to improve conditions. She did not tell us how she thought that that participation could become effective. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling—because the grapevine is pretty effective in this House—that her speech stemmed from my Government. Then I suddenly realised, reading the Bill in depth, that the first opportunity to take advantage of the ideas put forward by my hon. Friend, who has now been elected the chairman of our Social Services Committee, has not been taken in the Bill. This annoys me very much. I hope that when creative ideas are put forward my Government will have enough imagination to make use of them if they are practical.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend could under any circumstances reject the Amendments, to two of which I have added my name. I, too, had wanted to table an Amendment on the question of having too many medical people on the Board, but I was told that another hon. Member had already put down such an Amendment and that I could only add my name to it. However, I find that I could have put it down myself, but I am delighted to support the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). I only hope that the two Amendments to which I have added my name will be accepted by the Government.
I should like to deal first with the words that imply that the whole Board could be composed of members of the medical profession. That is not a very good idea. My hon. Friend may say that provision has been made for advisers. I know that, but my experience is that any committee listens politely to what people have to say and then pays no attention to them. This has happened on the consumer committees for the nationalised industries. I am sure that the Board would listen very politely to the advisers and to any information put forward by those actively concerned with the chronically sick and disabled, but when the advisers had left it would take its own decision, and there would then be nobody to fight the case on the Board. It is all very well being able to offer advice, but one must have fighters on the Board to see that one's advice is accepted.
I do not like the arrangement proposed. It is most unfortunate that the Board could be composed entirely of members of the medical profession. The medical profession is absolutely first-class, and I am sure that the people appointed to the Board will be proud and honoured to serve on it. But the medical profession does not know everything, and every now and again its members would get on much better if they would take a little advice from people with the experience and knowledge of the kind of thing being discussed.
I absolutely support the hon. Member for Wythenshawe in his suggestions to which I have added my name. I do not want a Board consisting entirely of medical people. They have all sorts of wonderful knowledge, but they are not necessarily always so good at the grass roots. They have not the experience of what a constant attendant has to do, the help that has to be given and what has to be provided inside a household. The Amendments are most practical, and I cannot see any reason why my hon. Friend cannot rise straight away to say that he accepts them.
The hon. Gentleman's Act would not have been the same without the enthusiasm, experience and knowledge of disabled people from which the committee which helped to support it benefited. We also benefited from all the inspiration and humanity they


brought into discussing the problem, and the reception the Bill received from Ministers when the present Opposition were in government. They took infinite care to try to make the Bill as practical as possible and we who were then in Opposition did our best to support them in every possible way.
It would be extraordinary if the medical profession had to have all the places on the Committee. If this is the case, it is a funny thing that the medical profession did not see that an Act helping the chronically sick and disabled reached the Statute Book before it was left to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe to produce it.
People who have tremendous knowledge, as the medical profession has, naturally want to use it to the best of their ability, but members of the medical profession do not understand about Parliament and how to pressurise Governments, whether Conservative or Socialist. They do not have a chance to pressurise a Liberal Government.
The assumption that a constant attendance allowance board should be composed wholly of members of the medical profession is intolerable. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who has put his proposals in much less rough terms than I have used in supporting them, for the assumption behind the Bill as it stands is intolerable.
The Under-Secretary has a deep knowledge of these matters and I am sure that he will agree with me. If he has been pressurised by the medical profession, I hope that he will become unpressurised and will allow the disabled to be represented on the board and not to act merely as advisers. The representatives of the disabled would be able to keep the country in touch with what was going on.
The Conservative Party believes in participation by those who have the knowledge to participate. There is no one in the Committee who does not know of the hard work and enthusiasm of the disabled in legislation now on the Statute Book and without their help we would not have got as far as we have with this Bill. We want participation at the highest possible levels so that the disabled may argue their case as full representatives on the board and not merely as advisers who

may be politely heard but whose views may be disregarded by members of the medical profession, who rather hang together. If we believe in participation, here is an opportunity to take the first step.
It would be unfortunate if the doctors were able to fill the board with medical people. I should like the board to include representatives of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists and the Royal College of Nursing, for example, but there must be at least direct representation of the disabled.
If my hon. Friend was thinking of finding charming reasons for turning down the Amendment, he should tear up his notes, speak his heart and take his advice from those of us who want the Bill to be a great success, those of us who want the disabled to have a chance to participate so that they may be proud of what they have started in the way of a proper service for the chronically sick and disabled.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: We on this side of the Committee are very pleased that once again the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has joined us in battling for the rights of the disabled. I rise to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) to press the Amendment and not to be persuaded to withdraw it. Whatever the intention of present Ministers, we know only too well from experience that good intentions may be quickly forgotten if the Amendment is not made.
The first of my two arguments for supporting the Amendment has already been made by the hon. Lady. Doctors should not have a monopoly of representation, or even form the majority, on the constant attendance board. Increasingly the function of the doctor is to look after the medical needs of the sick. The doctor sees a disabled person as a patient, as someone whom he is trying to keep alive, to keep out of pain, as someone he hopes one day to be able to cure. The doctor sees a disabled person as a medical case, but a disabled person is more than that.
For many disabled people the disability is the least of the medical problems. Disabled people are worried about isolation, loneliness, frustration. They


generally receive more help from the health visitor, the social worker and the people around them than from the doctor. The doctor spends little time with patients of this sort whom he has often written off as incurable. Because they spend so little time with them, the doctors never come to understand the total problems of such people; other people do.
The one category of person who understands most clearly is the disabled person himself. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) that while we were all grateful for the talented leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe during the passage of his Bill, a substantial part of the practical guidance came from the disabled themselves. We were indebted throughout the proceedings to the National Council for the Disabled; to the Campaign for the Young Chronic Sick, which stemmed from personal family experience; and to members of another place, one of whom was sent there specifically to speak on behalf of the disabled. We also received great assistance from hon. Members disabled in one way or another. However well intentioned they may be, those who have not been disabled do not have the sympathy and understanding which the disabled share.
For these reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Amendment to test the Government's attitude to the disabled on this point, and I strongly support him.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: I would like to support my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), perhaps more in the first part of her speech, dealing with her positive points of participation rather than with what she said about the medical profession. I press this point for two reasons. First, the inclusion of such an Amendment in the Bill would give confidence to those involved with making sure that their situations are understood. The understanding of the problems by a participant is always far greater than the understanding of problems by a sympathiser who can never understand them in the same way. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) in his Act has already made provision for this situation, and in my view this kind of

legislation can revolutionise the situation of the disabled.
If we take an example of those making applications for housing, covered by my hon. Friend's Act, people without legs, and people who have chronic asthmatic conditions, sitting on a housing committee are able more easily to understand the problems of people similarly placed and making applications to that Committee. In my constituency I have people in this situation who find it difficult to get suitable accommodation from the local authority. If there were someone, as I hope there will be, sitting on such committees they would be able to press those in authority in a way that sympathisers who have not experienced these matters could not.
In addition to the confidence that this would provide, such an Amendment would give hope to the disabled. There is a danger that disabled people may feel set aside from life. There is a danger that they will feel psychologically inferior as a result of their physical disability. This Amendment recognises that the disabled and chronic sick are part of society. If it is accepted it will give them extra confidence and even pride as citizens of the community. That is why I very much hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. McGuire: I, too, support this Amendment. The Under-Secretary will know that there is a payment known as the constant attendance allowance, payable for industrial and war injuries. Can he tell me in what way the powers of this board will differ from the powers of the authority which awards such an allowance? I ought to know the composition of the existing constant attendance allowance board but I do not and I would like enlightenment. All I know is that those who wish to qualify for the allowance have to overcome a pretty stiff hurdle. There has been the McCorquodale Commission, which made amendments to the subject of severe disablement and attendance allowances. I know that severe disablement alone does not qualify a person. When my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) I was delighted. When I


learned of my hon. Friend's disaster I sent him a letter saying that he, more than anyone else, could bring the problems of the disabled before the House. I told him that they needed a champion here who could speak about what it was like to be disabled.
I have a boy who is very severely disabled. He has two artificial legs, and that is why I asked a question about the entitlement. It was said that severe disablement would mean a double amputation. I wanted to say then that the hon. Gentleman should not mislead the Committee into thinking that this would qualify a person for the constant attendance allowance. We need someone who suffers from a disablement such as we are talking about in the House. We want people on this board who can participate in the decisions and have a voice in the debates.
The Minister has left himself with two options. The Bill says that two places can be filled with doctors, but if we are discussing constant attendance allowance I do not see how such a person can make a useful contribution. We need someone who is the wife or husband of someone receiving such an allowance. We are not talking about an ordinary disability. We should not think that by getting someone disabled, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South—useful as he would be in this context—upon such a board we have achieved everything. We do not want someone who is himself or herself disabled; we want, rather, the husband or wife, or other relative, of a disabled person, who will know at first hand what is involved.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: The Amendment has been pressed hard by hon. Members from both sides. The disabled whose case may be before the Constant Attendance Board and organisations representing the disabled should have confidence in the organisation and should be able to hope that all the factors which seem relevant will be fully considered.
The Bill which set up the board said that its composition should be between four and nine members—that remains in this Bill—and that each member of the board must be a medical practitioner. The previous Bill went further only in

this respect, saying that the board, not the Secretary of State could appoint persons as advisers on matters which the board thought needed special qualifications.
This is how matters stood before the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill went into Committee. In Committee, an addition was made to those provisions by a Government Amendment, which is now subsection (3) of this Bill. It says that the Secretary of State, not the board, can appoint others, but not for a medical adjudication, when the board was acting in its advisory capacity, since it was held that the Board had two clear functions—medical adjudication and an advisory capacity.
During the debate at that time, Mr. David Ennals said:
There may well be occasions on which the voice of someone speaking directly for the disabled, either through personal experience or through close involvement in an organisation working for the disabled, should be heard through membership of the board, or as an adviser. The Amendment"—
now subsection (3) of the Bill—
to allow the Secretary of State to add additional advisory members to the Board, with the power already in the Bill for the Board itself to appoint advisers, secures that all the necessary expertise can be brought to bear where and when needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 30th April, 1970; c. 1155–56.]
I am clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) wanted a member on the board to help in its advisory capacity, but I am not sure whether he and other hon. Members who support him had envisaged the presence of a chronically sick or disabled person to deal with a question which at least mainly, if not entirely, was a question of individual medical adjudication.
Although I recognise that other factors than medical will need to be taken into account, all hon. Members would like the Under-Secretary to be forthcoming about the Government's intent in respect of these suggestions. The point raised is an important one. It would be helpful to the board if a representative of the chronic sick or disabled—or a chronically sick or disabled person himself or herself—was a member of the board, at least in respect of part of its role.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which are also being discussed. During the Committee stage of the previous Bill on this subject the Under-Secretary—then in opposition—took the view that the adjudication of claims was not entirely and exclusively a medical matter. He pointed out that decisions would be taken by doctors at local level, so that the board, or some members of it, would review a medical decision that had already been taken. He was therefore in favour of representation on the board—at least in respect of adjudication—by someone who was not necessarily a qualified medical practitioner but was a recognised social worker.
In response to the representations made by the hon. Gentleman—now the Under-Secretary—Mr. David Ennals said that he would consider the point, but he took the view, as the Government did, that this was exclusively a medical matter. The medical profession would regard the question of appointments to the Board—as it has done in the past on a number of occasions—as entirely a matter for the profession, and would take the view that non-medically qualified people had no rôle to play in such appointments. On considering the matter I have come to the view that the Under-Secretary was right in the view that he then expressed.
But when individual claims are raised it is not merely a matter of medical consideration. The Government Amendment makes it a possibility, but no more, that some members of the board, in terms of its adjudicatory functions, need not necessarily be medical practitioners. But that does not go far enough. It is very cautious drafting. We understand the reasons for it. The medical profession is not the easiest one in the world to deal with. Nevertheless, hon. Members opposite have already found that they need not give that profession everything it wants—except during election periods. Once they have gained office it becomes a different matter. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will feel able to accept Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. They seek to make the provisious of the Bill a little firmer—to give the Government support when they tell the medical profession that some members of the board will be experienced in social work among disabled persons. Since I am taking the line

that the Under-Secretary took only a few months ago I hope that he will feel able—I am sure that he will; he cannot do anything else, with his history in the matter—to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Dean: This has been an extremely interesting debate on a very important subject. I say right away that there is no difference between us as to the aims and intentions that we wish to see achieved. I shall start by examining the composition of the board as laid down by the Bill, after which I shall expand a little on the precise way in which we propose that the powers should be used.
The composition of the board is laid down primarily in Clause 5(1). Under paragraph (a) the board has a duty to determine whether the medical conditions for an attendance allowance, as laid down in Clause 4, are satisfied. That is the specialist medical function.
The second function, in paragraph (b), is to advise the Secretary of State on questions he refers to the board regarding the working of the provisions, including the advisability of amending the provisions. This is a comprehensive function, in which we envisage that not only medical expertise will be of value but also non-medical expertise, that of social workers who know social needs and of people who know nursing needs, will be of value. This second function will, of course, be a very important one. One envisages that, as we gain experience of the working of attendance allowance, that experience will suggest various changes.
In deciding what changes may, in the light of experience, be made in the future, we shall need as comprehensive advice as possible from full members of the board—and I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that they would be full members of the board who would be exercising this function. They would not be exercising the narrower, specialist, medical functions, but they would be full members of the board for this all-important function of advising what changes should be made in future in the light of experience.
The third main function is to exercise any other
functions …. that the Secretary of State may determine.


Here, too, all the members would be concerned, and they would be equally members of the board in giving advice in this respect.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) conceded, since this matter was discussed in the last Parliament we have gone rather further. We have now laid down quite specifically that two members need not be medical practitioners, and in that sense I think we have gone a great deal of the way to meet the points which have been made for both sides of the Committee today. I hope that that helps with regard to the main functions.
Now I turn to subsection (3)—

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that the Government have come some way, because they have said that two of the members need not be medical practitioners. On reflection, would he think it would be a better situation if the Government were to say that two members should not be members of the medical profession?

Mr. Dean: I will come to that in a few moments. I should like to get it clear to the Committee exactly what the functions of the board are to be, and then I will come to the point the hon. Gentleman has raised.
As I was about to say, under subsection (3), which is a very important subsection, the Secretary of State may appoint as additional members of the board people whom he considers specially qualified, whether or not they are medical practitioners. These additional members will not, of course, take part in the purely medical decisions, but they will take part in the other decisions. Thus, one has a picture of a board with two members who need not be medical practitioners and additional members, either medical or non-medical, who can exercise the all-important advisory function.
I wonder whether the Committee has fully appreciated that we have, in my judgment, gone almost all the way to meet the points put forward from both sides of the Committee. I very much hope that hon. Members will feel on reflection that what they have been asking for is here in the Bill, and that it will not be necessary to take this question to a Division.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Mr. Alfred Morris rose—

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Dean: I have not finished yet. I still have some things to say which I hope will be helpful.
Much of the debate has concentrated on Amendment No. 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. The Amendment adds the words:
and shall include at least one person with experience of work among and of the needs of the chronically sick and disabled …".
That is the firm intention of the Government. The medical practitioners appointed to the board will include people with experience of work amongst and of the needs of the chronically sick and disabled. For example, many of the people who will make successful claims will be elderly people, so that it will be necessary to have on the board one or more medical practitioners with experience of geriatrics. These medical practitioners are likely to be people who know geriatrics from the hospital end and also from the community end, from the homes and the hostels in which the geriatrics live. We have in mind as wide a range of experience as we can possibly get for the non-medical functions. This wide range will be essential if the board is to command the respect and gain the confidence of those for whom it is working, and if the Secretary of State is to have the most comprehensive advice available. I think the point is met in the wording we now have.
The second part of Amendment No. 9 deals with the desirability of having on the board a chronically sick or disabled person. A person with direct knowledge of disability from personal experience is clearly the sort of person who would be carefully considered in deciding the composition of the board, but I am advised that the wording of the Amendment might not achieve the object which both sides of the Committee wish to see achieved.
My final point is a plea to maintain maximum flexibility. We are venturing into a new area. None of us knows how it will work out. We know the types of expertise that we want, but if we are to get on the board the people who are


necessary to make it successful, the Committee will recognise that we must first consult those most concerned about the precise composition of the board. If at this point the Committee tries to tie us down with wording which may not achieve what we all want to achieve, it might be much more difficult to get the people we want and for them freely to give us advice.
I hope that I have convinced the Committee that we are all after the same ends. It is merely a question of how they can best be achieved. In the judgment of the Government and from what we have heard so far, the objectives which have been suggested from both sides can best be achieved under the wording of the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I must press this point. I am sure that we would all pay tribute to bodies like the Disablement Income Group, the Disabled Living Foundation and the Central Council for the Disabled. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great respect for the medical profession, a respect which I share, but those of us who worked on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act are convinced that there is no greater fount of knowledge than lies in those organisations. This should be written into the Bill so that this knowledge should not be squandered.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the chair]

Dame Irene Ward: I am disappointed with the Under-Secretary's reply. He has charmingly and delightfully set out his arguments in detail, but I cannot see why he has any objection to these Amendments.
Does my hon. Friend consider that all the tests for the award of vehicles for the disabled are satisfactory? I have talked to people who have knowledge of this matter and they certainly are not satisfied. The fact that the Clause says that the Board should include two members of the medical profession does not satisfy me. I have no intention of supporting the Clause without amendment. That does not mean that I will vote against it, but I cannot support my hon. Friend on this matter.
The requests which have been put forward have been most reasonable. We

have never discussed numbers, but I gather that the Bill makes provision for a board of between four and nine members. If the Under-Secretary cannot get all the people he wants on the board within that number, then I despair.
He has not said a single word about participation which was mentioned in the speech of the hon. Member for Melton (Miss Pike). It was a wonderful speech, but she gave no indication of now she saw it being carried out. Had she been here to listen to this discussion she would have pounced on what has been said as being a wonderful opportunity.

Mr. Marks: Words not actions.

Dame Irene Ward: I am a Member of Parliament who likes action. The Under-Secretary of State has put his case in a nice and friendly way and no doubt hopes that everybody will be satisfied. But I am not satisfied. I am sorry that I should have to dispute with him of all people, but I feel that these two Amendments are reasonable. It is a pity that if the Conservative Party are keen on participation they do not take the first opportunity to demonstrate that they mean what they say.
I can only hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he will consider the matter on Report because we could have a Report stage. Between now and then my hon. Friend could meet those of us who feel strongly on these matters so that we could perhaps convince him instead of his trying to convince us.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Committee is now in some difficulty. I listened carefully to the terms of the Under-Secretary's reply. If it is his firm intention to meet the spirit of Amendment 9, hon. Members rightly want to know why it is not possible to include the wording of that Amendment in the Bill?
I must emphasise that we do not envisage the adjudication of medical points by non-medical people. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum makes it clear that there will be non-medical members serving on the Attendance Allowance Board. It says:
The Board … will consist preponderantly of medical members, though clause 5 (2) gives the Secretary of State power to appoint not more than two non-medical members to the Board. The Board will also have the duty of advising the Secretary of State on


such matters concerning attendance allowance as he may refer to them; for this purpose the Secretary of State can appoint additional members, whether medical or non-medical, to the Board.
This debate emphasises the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that, on the Attendance Allowance Board, there should be at least one severely disabled person. The disabled want nothing more than to make their proper contribution to society. They resent condescension more than anything else, and that is what this Clause is about. It is concerned with avoiding condescension towards disabled people.
In Amendment 9, we are seeking to emphasise that the disabled man or woman is the best possible representative of disabled people. We are testifying to our belief in the abilities of the disabled. There are some very bright intellects locked in crippled bodies. Even some of the most severely disabled people are extremely able when it comes to stating their case and explaining their problems. We must reject condescension because disabled people are in revolt against condescension. We must ensure that they are directly represented on any board, committee or council where their interests are discussed.
In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, we have provided that there shall be direct representation for the chronically sick and disabled on the Central Housing Advisory Committee, on the Youth Employment Executive, and on all kinds of consultative committees concerned with such matters as the uses of electricity, gas, coal and so on.
Thus it would be in keeping with what was done in the last Parliament for the Government to approve the Amendment.
I admired the strength with which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that she would support the Amendment. Since it is the Government's intention to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 9, I trust that they will accept the wording. I am being pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to divide on this matter. All concerned would welcome the addition of Amendment No. 9 to the Clause, and I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to give an assurance to include not only the spirit but also

the wording of Amendment No. 9, if not now, at a later stage in the Bill's consideration by Parliament.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: The Under-Secretary will appreciate the strength of feeling that has been aroused in discussing this series of Amendments. I recognise that he has tried to meet the demands that have been made in connection with Amendment No. 9. Hon. Members on both sides want a chronically sick and disabled person on the board. This is the whole argument.
The Government say that members of the board may be medical practitioners. We say that they should not be medical practitioners. This arises under Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Unless the Under-Secretary can say that at a later stage some further amendment of the Bill will be made to meet the spirit of these Amendments, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 9.
I appreciate that as the Report stage will follow immediately the Committee stage, it is impossible for the Under-Secretary to undertake to introduce an Amendment between now and Report. If he will undertake not only to accept the spirit of these Amendments but to amend the Bill accordingly at a later stage, in another place, substantially to meet the demands that have been made, I shall be able to advise my hon. Friends to leave the matter there. However, unless he gives this categorical assurance, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Mr. Dean: I will try to help the Committee a little further. I tried earlier to explain fully the functions of the board and how important will be the advisory functions in which the non-medical element would play a critical part in advising my right hon. Friend, in the light of experience, as to any changes that may be made.
I should like now to deal with one or two specific points, and particularly with the point made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) in his second speech, when he appeared to be under the impression that Amendment No. 9 refers only to the additional members of the Board. As I understand it, it refers to the full members, so in that


sense it ties down the Secretary of State in respect of the composition of the Board more than the hon. Member himself would wish. He may not have fully appreciated that point, which he might himself regard as one of the perhaps not entirely satisfactory features of the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) asked for an assurance that a chronically sick or disabled person would be a member. That, again, would be to go further even than the wording of the Amendment. One would expect, as I said earlier, that someone who had direct knowledge and experience of disability would be valuable in this work, but one could not be sure that at any one time an individual who was right and appropriate would be available for the job. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that we must have a disabled person on the Board—full stop—but only that this should happen if there were someone in that category obviously suitable for the work. Here, again, there lies a danger of our being tied down rather too much.
I would not be frank if I were to tell the Committee that we will have time to consider the matter further between now and Report. The House, I know, is anxious that the Report stage should

follow at once, so that further consideration is not practicable.

Equally, it would be wrong of me to say that it might be possible to introduce an Amendment in another place. The Committee knows very well that we are anxious that the Bill should reach the Statute Book as soon as possible, so that pensions for the over-80s can be paid in November as planned, so that the preparatory work for paying the widows' pensions and, above all, so that the enormous amount of preparatory work we have to do to put this provision into operation, shall be done at the earliest possible time. So it would not be frank of me to hold out hope there.

I ask the Committee to take us on trust on this point. I have given an assurance that what has been said will be very carefully considered, and that we do intend in spirit, without all the disadvantages I have mentioned of being tied down, to put into effect the valuable points that have been made in the debate. That being so, I hope that we shall not have a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 127, Noes 179.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[9.10 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Allen, Scholefield
Ellis, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Evans, Fred
Kerr, Russell


Booth, Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Freeson, Reginald
McCann, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
McCartney, Hugh


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Golding, John
McGuire, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Michael
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cohen, Stanley
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Concannon, J. D.
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Hn. Ronald King


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Brian


Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman




Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Skinner, Dennis
Watkins, David


Prescott, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)
Wellbeloved, James


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, dames (Glasgow, Pollok)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Steel, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rose, Paul B.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Strang, Gavin



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sillars, James
Torney, Thomas
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Silverman, Julius
Wallace, George
Mr. William Hamling.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Peel, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Awdry, Daniel
Hawkins, Paul
Pounder, Rafton


Baker, W. H. K.
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hicks, Robert
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Benyon, W.
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rankin, John


Blaker, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Redmond, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Holland, Philip
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)


Boscawen, R. T.
Holt, Miss Mary
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Bernard
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rost, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cockeram, Eric
Kinsey, Joseph
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Simeons, Charles


Coombs, Derek
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooper, A. E.
Knox, David
Soref, Harold


Cormack, Patrick
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Curran, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Spence, John


Dance, James
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stanbrook, Ivor


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Dixon, Piers
Madel, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dykes, Hugh
Maginnis, John E.
Stokes, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fidler, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Tilney, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Moate, Roger
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Molyneaux, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Money, Ernle D.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Fowler, Norman
Montgomery, Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilkinson, John


Gorst, John
Mudd, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom
Younger, Hon. George


Gurden, Harold
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally



Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Dean: I beg to movef Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 37, at beginning insert—
'Without prejudice to subsection (2) of section 8 of this Act and to the operation by virtue of that subsection, in relation to matters arising out of this Act, of any provision of the principal Act,'.
This is a technical Amendment. If the Committee wishes further explanation, I shall be glad to give it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

ELIGIBILITY OF PENSION BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 1

A death grant of an amount of £15 shall be payable in respect of any person who becomes eligible for pension by virtue of section 1 of this Act.—[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause would provide a death grant of £15 in respect of any person who becomes eligible for a pension under Clause 1. I say straight away that I am aware that in the mammoth Bill of the former Administration there was express exclusion of persons over pension age in July 1948 from the benefit of a death grant. That, I think, must have been an aberration, a printer's error, or something of that sort. I do not feel committed by it. In these matters, hon. and right hon. Members opposite must make allowances for changes of opinion with the passage of time. After all, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said last Friday that the Government were of opinion that the logic against this Bill seemed narrowly based, and they thought that it should be broadened out. I am bringing the same broader point of view to bear as did the Secretary of State.
Over the months and years when we have been discussing this matter, we have all heard of the rapid rate at which these old people were passing out, and we

were told that, if we did not hasten with the pension provision which is given in this Bill, there would be no one left; they would all have died.
The benefits given under the first part of the Bill may go to persons who are fairly old, women of 82 and men of 87. I am told that 87 is a great age, though when my father was 87 he was still a full-time textile worker. When one of my uncles died soon after retiring at the age of 90, my father said, "That is what comes of giving up too soon". None the less, for the ordinary run of people, which excludes members of my family, 87 is a great age, and one cannot expect to last much longer then.
The new Clause would provide a kind of bonus at the end of life of five weeks' pension for a death grant. It is very small. I roughly calculate that the total cost would be less than £2 million by the time all death grants have been paid.
On earlier parts of the Bill, we heard that those who are to benefit from it have been excluded from the benefits of the retirement pension scheme for over 20 years. In considering what recompense or restitution they should be given, we have to bear in mind that this benefit is provided very late in the day. Unhappily, many will not live long enough to enjoy it for any great length of time. No doubt, a number of them are worried about what will happen when they go. So we think that, having regard to the fact that the Government have picked out this group of people for particular treatment, there is justification in the context of this Bill for providing the lower rate of death grant. Many people are sad at the exclusion of the older generation from the death grant of the 1948 scheme. But we realised then that it was a benefit that would have had to be paid in respect of everyone in due course, and it would have been a heavy burden on the National Insurance Fund.
The benefit proposed would be payable out of the fund, but it is a small additional charge and I am sure that it would not be begrudged by the contributors. It seems a suitable restitution to be made along with the modest pension provided under the Bill. I hope that we may at long last, towards the end of the Bill's passage, have a gesture from the Government Front Bench. May I give the Under-Secretary a little advice? You


must always keep something up your sleeve, some concession to be made to the Opposition at a suitable moment in the debate, and then everything goes so much more smoothly. I know that the hon. Gentleman did his persuasive best on the last Amendment, but if he had gone just that little bit further he might have saved himself any consequences of the rejection of my new Clause.
I hope that the Clause can be conceded. The hon. Gentleman does not have to bring the Treasury Ministers into the matter, although we understand what wrestling with conscience there must have been in the Treasury on some of the Clauses. We can imagine the hon. Members for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and Worthing (Mr. Higgins) wrestling together, each wanting to outdo the other in the provisions of the Bill, bearing in mind that one sponsored such a Bill one year and the other did so the next year. We can imagine each of them wishing to go down in history as having really done a good job of work for the Conservative Party.
Here is the chance to round off that job and to provide a death grant of £15 for all who receive a pension under Clause 1. It is a small thing to ask—less than £2 million, £15 per person on death for those, and only those, who are covered by Clause 1.
I sincerely hope that we may have a generous response from the Under-Secretary to satisfy not only right hon. and hon. Members on this side but, judging from the eager looks of his hon. Friends behind him, right hon. and hon. Members opposite as well.

Mr. Dean: The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) does his best with his blandishments to wring a concession out of the Government, but he has chosen a provision which I think he and the Committee will feel is not as practicable, as good in principle, or as inexpensive, as he may think.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman admitted, with that disarming frankness which he always shows to the Committee, that he has already found cause to regret an omission from the Bill of the previous Administration. He talked about the passage of time changing attitudes. It is remarkable what 3½ weeks will do. I

wonder how many more weeks we shall need before he disowns the whole of that Bill.
One of the difficulties of the Clause is that it will produce some very odd results which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman or the Committee would regard as fair. It would provide for only a minority of all the elderly people who have no title at all to death grant. It would therefore produce anomalous results. Death grant is not payable for the death of anyone over pensionable age on 5th July, 1948. There are about 640,000 people who are not covered for death grant, and under the Amendment the deaths of 100,000 who have paid no or few contributions under the pre-1948 scheme would give rise to title to death grant. But the grant would not be paid for the deaths of over 500,000 people who have paid substantially or in full under the pre-1948 scheme. The right hon. Gentleman can see that his proposal therefore has grave objections.
9.30 p.m.
While it is true that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would probably cost less than £2 million, to extend the grant to include the deaths of those over pension age in 1948 would bring in 640,000 people, and at the rate of £15, which is half the rate paid for the death of those within 10 years of pensionable age in 1948, the cost would be about £10 million, spread over a number of years. Therefore, for practical reasons and also because of the substantial cost which would inevitably flow from the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, I must ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

INVALIDITY PENSION

(1) There shall be an additional description of benefit under the principal Act which shall be called an invalidity pension.

(2) Regulations may provide for the making of claims for the payment of an earnings-related invalidity pension and of awards pursuant to such claims.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Deputy Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take with the new Clause Amendment No. 17, in line 10, after 'Board', insert:
'to make provision for invalidity pension'.

Mr. O'Malley: I do not need to move the new Clause with any of the obvious hesitancy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in moving new Clause 1. We are all aware of the modesty which my right hon. Friend always shows in introducing his proposals.
As my right hon. Friend said, the death grant was specifically excluded from the Bill which we discussed in the old Parliament, and although there could have been difficulties for us in that respect, they were quickly overcome by my right hon. Friend, who met the charge that could have been made full on. We are in a different position with this proposal because it contains provision which was contained in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill which we discussed at length in the last Parliament.
The concept of an invalidity pension was not something which divided the House in the last Parliament. The parties were at one and agreed that an invalidity pension related long-term to earnings should be implemented as quickly as possible.
We are moving forward modestly with this proposal because we are not trying to lay down all the details. We are not dictating to the Government exactly how they should operate the provision. All we are doing is to set out in broad general terms what we propose while leaving the date of operation and other details to the discretion of the Government, so that in their own good time—one would hope without too much delay—they may bring forward the necessary regulations or minor legislation as quickly as possible to introduce what both sides agreed would be a desirable proposal.
The background of the new Clause is that short-term earnings-related sickness benefit has been a great boon to many people who have been ill for any length of time. It was introduced by a Labour Government. It is payable after the first two weeks of sickness, although not during the first two weeks, and thereafter for the next 26 weeks an earnings-related

supplement is payable on top of the flat-rate sickness benefit. As the purpose of such earnings-related supplement is to see that an individual's income does not fall too sharply and shall bear some relation to the income he was receiving when at work, it is not surprising that it was a feature of the legislation of the Labour Administration which was widely welcomed throughout the community. It prevents a short drop in income which occurs when people have only a short-term flat-rate sickness benefit rather than a supplement. The principle of earnings-related payments for sickness has already been firmly established and is working successfully.
We now look at the position of those who are sick for over 28 weeks, beyond the time when earnings-related short-term sickness benefit continues to be payable. It is important that the House should bear in mind that an increasing number of the population is becoming long-term sick; that is sick for more than six months. On the latest figures about 400,000 people have been sick for more than six months.
Taking men, usually the wage earner, the numbers off work because of sickness for more than one year in 1966–67 was 241,000. In 1962–63 it was lower, at 209,000. What emerges from the figures is that there is a changing pattern of sickness in the community with a higher incidence of heart diseases involving longer absences from work. A high proportion of those long-term sick are elderly. The latest figures I have seen show that 73 per cent. were over 50. A substantial number of elderly widows, those over 50 who have taken employment, find themselves in this position.
It is clearly desirable that long-term earnings-related sickness benefit of some kind or another should be introduced as an extension of the principle of short-term earnings-related benefit. It would be helpful to those who have only the flat-rate benefit.
I could make a much more extensive case for the merits of what we call an invalidity pension but I do not think it is necessary as the whole House sees the case for it. It would be possible to introduce such a pension in advance of other legislation. It will, clearly, take


the Government some time to get their plans drafted, and it is reasonable, when there is general agreement, that the Government should take an early opportunity of introducing this invalidity pension, which would be welcomed throughout the country, particularly by the long-term, often elderly, sick who are in an unsatisfactory position when they receive only flat-rate benefit. It would be substantially to their advantage if such payments could be made, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept the Amendment or move quickly towards the introduction of an inability pension.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is putting on his most ingenious disingenuous act. He knows quite well that the proposals of his Government to introduce an invalidity pension were inextricably involved with the whole earnings-related pension reform which that Government introduced. It cannot be taken out of the whole apparatus in which it was interlinked and just introduced as an act of goodwill by a month-old Government. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friends who are interested that this is an area which the Government are bound to explore, particularly in connection with the chronic sick and the disabled.
I could have wished that the previous Administration had moved more quickly to do the statistical exploration themselves. It was not until towards the end of 1968, four years after they took office, and four years after the then Chancellor of the Duchy, the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), had taken up his post with that famous desk and those famous two secretaries, with which he was meant to co-ordinate all the social services—I say that with the greatest personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman—that the Government embarked on a survey of the human background against which the chronic sick and the disabled will have to be treated.
The material from that survey is coming forward, and in a few months some of the lessons there will be known to Ministers. It was a very elaborate survey when it was undertaken, and the material will take a lot of processing. When we

start getting the lessons we shall be able to start examining the implications of trying to move forward in this field.
But of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this Bill, with its close attachment to three separate and limited improvements of treatment, is not the vehicle with which to embark upon this great new field of which he speaks. However, the manifesto with which my party fought the election commits us to moving forward to help the seriously ill or disabled, as well as to introduce the attendance allowance for the most severely disabled which is in this Bill.
So we can, on this side, accept that the subject of the Amendment is one which the Government must study. The hon. Member will accept that this is not the Bill with which to try to start, even if his Government had given us the information to tackle this huge field. Therefore, I hope that in the light of this explanation he will not press the Amendment. If he does, I must ask my hon. Friends to recognise that it is a very tongue-in-the-cheek Amendment, which must be resisted.

Mr. O'Malley: The Secretary of State must think that I am simpler than I look. He said that I knew that the invalidity proposals were inextricably tied up with the rest of a complex scheme and could not be taken out. He knows that I was not taking it out. In that previous Bill, there were details of how this invalidity pension were to be paid, and it was to be linked with the 60–25 per cent. principle which ran through the whole of the Bill. We did not try to impose that on him. We left him with a Clause which left the whole subject open to his discretion. Since we already have short-term earnings-related sickness benefits without any new detailed proposals I would have thought that we could have longer-term earnings-related sickness benefits.
What is more disappointing is that after hon. Members on both sides of the House, and people outside, had thought that there was general agreement on the principle that longer-term earnings-related sickness payments should be made the Government have ratted on it—because we have been told that they are bound to explore the situation, and to study it. The country will be interested


to know that the Conservative Administration have no intention of moving forward, as the Labour Government had, towards longer-term earnings-related sickness benefits—[Interruption.] That is what the right hon. Gentleman implied. On that basis I have no hesitation in recommending my hon. Friends to go

with a will into the Lobby and to vote for the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 178.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[9.46 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Goodhart, Philip
Murray, Hn. Ronald King


Allen, Scholefield
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamling, William
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hattersley, Roy
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Heffer, Eric S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hooson, Emlyn
Prescott, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cocks, Michael
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Sillars, James


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Steel, David


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCann, John
Torney, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Wallace, George


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Watkins, David


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest Chapman and


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Golding, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fortescue, Tim


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clegg, Walter
Fowler, Norman


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cockeram, Eric
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Humphrey
Coombs, Derek
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Awdry, Daniel
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhart, Philip


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Curran, Charles
Gorst, John


Benyon, W.
Dance, James
Gower, Raymond


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul
Green, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gummer, Selwyn


Blaker, Peter
Dixon, Piers
Gurden, Harold


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dykes, Hugh
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Boscawen, R. T.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bowden, Andrew
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eyre, Reginald
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Braine, Bernard
Farr, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bray, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Havers, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fidler, Michael
Hawkins, Paul


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hayhoe, Barney


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Higgins, Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hiley, Joseph




Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Simeons, Charles


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Soref, Harold


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Speed, Keith


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Spence, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Sproat, Iain


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, John
Normanton, Tom
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


James, David
Osborn, John
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Sutcliffe, John


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Peel, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kilfedder, James
Percival, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kinsey, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
Tilney, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Knox, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Loveridge, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Waddington, David


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Redmond, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


McMaster, Stanley
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)
Warren, Kenneth


Madel, David
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Weatherill, Bernard


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Wilkinson, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Worsley, Marcus


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenhire, W)
Rost, Peter
Younger, Hon. George


Moate, Roger
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Molyneaux, James
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Money, Ernie D.
Sharpies, Richard
Mr. Jasper More and


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Monro, Hector
Shelton, William (Clapham)

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an admendment; as amended, considered.

9.56 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
There are only three things for me to do at this stage. The first is to thank both sides of the House for the very constructive, though vigorous, debate. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, all my hon. Friends, many of whom have taken part in the debate, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), his right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and their formidable colleagues who have contributed so helpfully to the debate.
In contrast, I have to confess to the House a small error. In asking the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) to withdraw an Amendment, I undertook to meet the substance of his case by introducing a Government Amendment. That was a technical error. We shall meet the substance of his case, but in the regulations that we shall lay as a result of the Bill. I wish to put on

record that we shall honour our obligations by the regulations and not by an Amendment.
Finally, the common factor of the three groups of people whom the Bill seeks to benefit—the very elderly leftouts, the younger widows and the very severely disabled—is that each in its different way presents a problem of identification. We have to find many of the people who will benefit under the Bill. I undertake to the House that if the Bill passes into law we shall with the utmost speed bring the benefits into payment. I hope that the House, after today's debate, will be content to give the Bill a Third Reading.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: This is the first Bill of the new Parliament and the new Administration. We on this side of the House thought that it would be ungracious to allow the Third Reading to pass without a few words of appreciation of what is contained in the Bill. It will be welcomed by those who will receive benefit from it, and certain sections of the community who have not received benefit before and whose positions will be improved will also welcome it.
We have tried to pack more into the Bill than the Secretary of State would allow. We understand that, but he for his part understands the function of opposition. We are getting used to opposition again; we will have to get used to it. I hope that we will learn as we go along.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the National Insurance Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Bill, the International Monetary Fund Bill and the Education (Handicapped Children) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (OLD PERSONS' AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS AND ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE) BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Houghton: As I was saying, we on this side of the House welcome the improvements in the Bill. We thank the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretaries of State for the help and patience they have shown. The persuasive manner of the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretaries on one or two occasions almost overcame our instinct for Opposition. But we overcame the temptation to give way.
We welcome the Bill. It is a sign of the social advance we hope we will get from the new Administration. We look forward eagerly to what they will bring forward next time.

10.1 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend one question about the memorandum in the Bill, which sets out the number of additional civil servants that will be needed to undertake the necessary preparations for the introduction of the Bill. I am sure nobody will take exception since the numbers involved appear to be reasonable. However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend

for stating the number of civil servants that will need to be recruited for this purpose since it is satisfactory that the House should know what is to happen. Since we are to abolish the Land Commission, I am wondering why we could not use some of those deposed civil servants in the implementation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the Third Reading of this Bill. With all the good will in the world, I cannot see that the Land Commission comes into this Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear what you said because everybody was laughing.

Mr. Speaker: I must repeat it since it is important. With all the good will in the world, I would point out that we are now on Third Reading of the Bill. On the Third Reading of the Bill the House discusses what is in the Bill. The Land Commission and its abolition are not in the Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact there is quite a lot in the Bill about the civil servants who are to implement it. All I was asking was why we cannot use some of the displaced civil servants from the Land Commission instead of having to engage new ones? I cannot think that this is outside the scope of the Bill and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how he intends to organise this matter.

10.3 p.m.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: On the Second Reading of the Bill I said that the National Insurance system was rotten and that this Bill represented a nail in its coffin. During Committee stage we had useful discussion about the relationship between benefits and contributions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State denied that so far as the Bill introduces pensions for the over-80s it breaches the contributory principle. That perhaps is a somewhat controversial matter, but I do not wish to take issue with him on that point.
I am sure the whole House welcomes the introduction of the constant attendance allowance, which is free from any


relationship with the contributory principle. It is in some ways a most important departure from the underlying concepts of National Insurance since the introduction of family allowances in 1945.
Many of us who are deeply concerned about the evolution of the Welfare State must welcome this departure and feel that it represents a landmark in our thinking about the way in which the relationship between the individual and the community will express itself in the future.
I want only to say, finally, how glad I am that this is the first Bill that we have introduced, since I believe that it will be seen as an historic event.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. McGuire: In welcoming this Bill, since we can now discuss only those provisions that we have agreed should be included, I want first to express my thanks to the Secretary of State for being present during most of our debates, although he did not take a great part in them, most of the spade work being ably done by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I wish to pay them the tribute that I had occasion to pay to some of my colleagues when we were in Government. As a team, they have an easy way of dealing with our questions. I once said of one of my right hon. Friends and I say of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, that they would make a man comfortable on the scaffold. They do it very nicely.
The fact remains, however, that the Government have stolen some of our political clothes. They have left out some very important parts—namely, the invalidity pension—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What clothes the Government have left out cannot be discussed in this Third Reading debate.

Mr. McGuire: You are quite right, of course, Mr. Speaker. We shall have to pursue the point at Question time. I will leave it there.
Many people voted for the Conservative Party when they read the promise in the Conservative manifesto about giving "some pension". If I may use a pit term, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have "worked a flanker" on a lot of the people who voted for them,

believing that those with whom this Bill deals would be given a proper and full pension. I do not think that anyone voted for the Conservatives in the belief that the people dealt with in this Bill would get less than a person who has not contributed and who claims supplementary benefit. That is why I say that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have "worked a flanker" and, when this fact gets home to their supporters, there will be a great deal of wrath in the country. I believe that the electors have been deliberately deceived.
The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) says that the Government have breached the contributory principle. However, they have done so only in the most minute fashion. What has prevented them from giving more than the proposed £3 is the contributory principle.
To the extent that the Bill gives a pension to these elderly people, I welcome it, though it would not have been very high in my own list of priorities. To the extent that it establishes a board which is to concern itself with constant attendance allowances. I welcome it, too, for giving some benefit to widows aged between 40 and 50, though, again, I would not give it too high a priority.
We look forward to the Government's further measures. We shall welcome them when they are introduced, including, it is to be hoped, one creating Labour's proposed invalidity pension.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: In case right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that we on this side are in complete agreement with the Bill, I ought to make it clear that, though we are not opposing it, that is quite different from saying that we support it enthusiastically.
I have a suspicion that some hon. Members opposite believe that revolutionary changes are contained in the Bill and that it is due entirely to Conservative Party thinking. However, there has not been any thinking in the Conservative Party—

Mr. McGuire: They have stolen our clothes.

Mr. Brown: If hon. Members opposite understand what the hon. Member for


Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is talking about, I will be surprised. We do not, and we have had longer to listen to him. I know that he accepts the spirit of that demand.
Two-thirds of this Bill is ours. One-third comes from the Government, and it is a very bad third. Whether or not hon. Gentlemen opposite like it, the philosophy here is giving pensions to people who have no proven need. That is the spirit, such as it is, behind the Bill.
The apostle of private enterprise, of people looking after themselves and of protecting the small business man, the Secretary of State, is producing a first Measure which is, of course, contrary to his philosophy and to that of the Conservative Party. I do not regard this increase in public expenditure as a priority, even in social service terms. I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite will live to regret thinking that there is some kudos in introducing this as their first piece of legislation.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is a pity that recent speakers on the benches opposite have introduced such a discordant note, after the fine and just remarks of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) about the Bill.
People throughout the country will welcome this Measure, particularly as it is the first Bill to be introduced by the new Conservative Government. The electorate will accept that this is a Government that is beginning to implement its election pledges. Indeed, it is a Bill which is in sharp contrast to the first Measure which was introduced by the last Labour Government.
In my constituency many hundreds of people will benefit from the various provisions of this Bill. They will feel that the Government have put first things first by making this their first Bill.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: Hon Gentlemen opposite have

indicated on a number of occasions that, in their view, there is no need for this Measure. They must be aware, however, that the Bill is particularly welcome because it gives, as of right, benefits to people who in the past have not wanted to take advantage of certain benefits to which they were entitled. This is one of the main reasons why we welcome the Bill.

10.14 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: With the leave of the House, I will comment briefly on some of the points that have been made.
I thank the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) for his kind words, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) for their encouraging remarks.
In answer to the hon. Member for Ince, who mixed some kind words with sharp comments, I insist that we only promised the people of this country some pension for the over-80s, and we have interpreted that obligation scrupulously.
Although you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) were out of order, I am sure that a number of her comments will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Likewise, I assure her that my right hon. Friends concerned will take note of them.
Though the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) is right—we have never denied this—that two-thirds of the Bill is bipartisan material, I remind him that the £17 million that pays for that two-thirds comes from a Tory Treasury and will be paid with great pleasure to deserving people in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

U.K. SUBSCRIPTIONS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): Our Second Reading debate on Friday was extremely short, and that reflected, I think, not any lack of enthusiasm on the part of the House for the Measure, which was supported in all parts, but rather that the House was anxious to facilitate its Second Reading within the short time then available.
That debate was remarkable also for the fact that it contained two maiden speeches: it probably contained a higher percentage of maiden speeches than any other debate we have ever had. That, again, reflected the interest which new Members are taking in matters concerning our international finance.
I feel that on this occasion the House will wish me to give some more detailed explanation of the two main Clauses and, in particular, of this Clause.
Britain was extremely influential and played an important rôle in setting up the Fund, the World Bank and the Bretton Woods institutions, and it is right and proper to stress that the International Monetary Fund has promoted a free system of world trade and payments which has helped its members to achieve economic growth, high levels of employment and improved standards of living. In considering this Clause, it is worth reminding the House that the Fund's resources are at present 21 billion dollars, and, under the proposals described in Cmnd. 4353, which sets out the proposals for increasing the resources of the Fund, these resources will be increased to a total of 29 billion dollars.
These sums, which the Fund holds in gold and in currencies, provide a reserve on which members may draw, with the Fund's agreement, to meet foreign

obligations during periods of deficit in their balance of payments, or, in the more formal words of the first of the Articles of Agreement, to give
confidence to members … by providing them with opportunity to correct maladjustments in their balance of payments without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity.
In the Second Reading debate, hon. Members on both sides expressed support for this new Bill, which is in the line with the development of the Fund's affairs.
The resources of the Fund are derived from member countries' subscriptions, and the object of the Clause is to facilitate an increase in quotas by increasing subscription. Each member of the Fund has a quota which determines its voting rights, its access to Fund resources and, since last year, its allocations of Special Drawing Rights, so that the size of subscription and quota is a matter of very great importance to the members of the Fund. The subscription is equal to the quota, and is paid on this occasion, as on others, partly in gold and partly in the member's own currency.
The Articles of Agreement provide for reviews of the adequacy of members' quotas, which were initially designed on a basis which was said to reflect their economic strength. But there is also a provision for reviewing the situation regularly every five years, and it is the result of the fifth review that we are now being asked to approve. The purpose of each review is to look at the new situation which has arisen in the preceding five years, and to adjust the quotas according to the relative strengths of the individual member countries. But there are no rules to determine the precise size of the new quotas or the size of the Fund's resources. This has to be decided by the collective agreement of the member countries.
On this occasion there were some changes in the usual emphasis partly as a result of the introduction of Special Drawing Rights which the House discussed when debating the International Monetary Fund Bill in 1968. The S.D.R.s, as I said on Friday, are a creation of unconditional liquidity, but it was felt—

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Can the Minister say what instructions our representatives had during


the discussions fixing our quota? Was it the intention that the quota should be fixed at as high a level as possible, or was the figure proposed by our own representatives?

Mr. Higgins: I think it would be wrong for me to set out the precise instructions. I was seeking to set out the considerations which were borne in mind by the Fund and the various conflicting pressures which determine the allocation of the quotas and the subscriptions among various countries. But there are, quite clearly, conflicting pressures, and one needs to bear in mind not only the relative economic strengths of countries and how they change from one period to another, but also the claims of developing countries as against the developed countries. All these considerations have to be taken into account, and effectively in these discussions, as in other discussions, one needs to move forward and see how various pressures are building up.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. Can he say whether it was the Government's intention to press for as high a quota as possible?

Mr. Higgins: One has to take into account not only whether we want the highest quota possible but other considerations such as the share which will go to the less developed countries. This is a matter for negotiation but, clearly, the absolute amount is something which has to have limits placed upon it because there is a danger of the creation of inflationary pressures. One has to take into account not only our own position but also the position, for example, of Commonwealth less developed countries and so on. It was felt that we had to strike a balance. Effectively, the major industrialised countries agreed to make a cut in the 8 per cent. of the quota to which in theory they would have been entitled. If one had gone purely on the grounds normally taken one would have gone for a somewhat bigger quota, but it was the view taken at the time in the meetings that the industrialised countries should take a somewhat smaller increase in total amount and that their percentage share should be lower than otherwise would be the case.
In some cases this 8 per cent. cut was made on very large increases but the

U.K., since the last review, did not qualify for a special increase. This 8 per cent. cut meant that our increased quota eventually came out at about 15 per cent. I take the point the hon. Member has made; namely, the question of to what extent we pressed for the maximum quota. The answer is "No, we could have continued to negotiate for a larger share of the total but taking all considerations into account we felt that the right increase was of the order of about 15 per cent.".
This raised an important question because very important rights stem from the size of the quota in regard to S.D.R.s, for example, and so on. This being so, it is right to stress that our quota is still by far the largest quota after the United States. The difference between the United States and ours is, of course, considerable. We are, quite clearly, the second largest and, therefore, in terms of voting rights and so on we have a position second to the United States but considerably ahead of the others. If the hon. Member presses me on this point I will seek later in reply to the debate to give more precise figures.
Our maximum drawing rights have increased from 3,050 million dollars to 3,500 million dollars, of which 2,400 million dollars have been used. The House will wish to be assured about the nature of the payment we have to make for our increased quota. The sum of £37 million will be payable in gold, but it will increase the amount we can draw automatically from the Fund; the remaining 75 per cent. is to be paid to the Fund in sterling, but immediately lent back to us without interest. The Fund holds large amounts of sterling from earlier quotas and the equivalent of foreign currency borrowings. So there will be no question of an early call on us with respect to this new payment in sterling.
I hope that that outlines the broad points which arise on the Clause. No doubt a number of hon. Members will wish to raise particular matters, and if they wish me to do so, I will elaborate on the various points I have made.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am disturbed that a Bill of this importance was not adequately discussed on Second Reading, because it was inevitable, if the Bill was to be accorded its Second Reading on a Friday afternoon, that very limited contributions


should be made from the Front Benches. Our discussions were illuminated by two excellent maiden speeches, but the Second Reading was certainly not a full one.
I have for a long time felt some concern about the negotiations which were proceeding for the issue of Special Drawing Rights, because one of the greatest problems facing the world trading community at present is that of mounting inflationary pressures. The agreement to permit the Fund to increase the quotas of its members in this way and to allow Special Drawing Rights is in effect a licence to the Fund to print money.
In the disputes over the causes of the depression in the 1930s progressive thinkers at that time were unanimous that we had to ascape from the tyranny of gold, that we had to find some other medium of exchange, and that it was necessary to expand liquidity to find ways of sustaining world trade. It now seems rather mean spirited to cavil when at last we seem to have arrived at a measure of international agreement to increase the available capital resources to sustain an even balance of world trade.
I ask myself whether sufficient attention has been given to another alternative which has been widely canvassed; namely, whether countries which find it difficult to maintain a fixed exchange rate for one reason or another should be allowed to vary their exchange rate—at any rate within narrow limits—rather than be forced to continue to subsidise their current account out of capital account.
Those who feel that above everything we must preserve a system of absolutely rigidly fixed exchange rates have said that the only way to preserve the structure of world trade is enormously to increase the available supplies on capital account which can be poured into the maintenance of current account balances when countries get into difficulties.
I Welcome any international agreement arrived at after years of negotiation the effect of which is to liberate world trade. Yet I cannot help wondering whether just at this juncture the inflationary pressures which are bound to be generated by the increase, virtually at the stroke of the pen, of the capital resources of countries en-

gaging in international trade is wise; and whether it would not have been better that the pressure should have been sustained, so that we would have gone some further way down the road to managed exchange rates, crawling pegs—call it what you will.
I hope that the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State is correct that there is no question of an early call under the Clause on the money which we are asked to vote, because I think we should go extremely cautiously down the new path towards the issue of paper gold.
There have been rather forward-looking suggestions put about from continental centres that we should draw away from gold virtually altogether and that the Special Drawing Rights should become the pivot of international trade. It may be that that is the way that the future lies. Yet as we look about we see virtually all the major Western international powers afflicted by inflation. Is this the moment to print a great deal of capital? Is it the moment to try to pretend that inflation is affecting all the world's economies simultaneously by exactly the same amount, so that, although the value of money is falling everywhere, we can at least maintain some element of stability by keeping absolutely fixed exchange rates?
10.30 p.m.
It seems patently not true that inflation is proceeding in all the major trading countries of the West at the same rate. Less than a fortnight ago I attended a conference of bankers and economists in Frankfurt, where we were told with authority that wage rates in Germany, taking into account the social security payments which have to be added on top, were currently increasing at the rate of 25 per cent. per annum. I do not know whether that is true, but it suggests that in Germany also this problem of inflation is on the point of getting out of hand.
How long shall we be able to maintain the illusion of absolutely fixed exchange rates, immutable for all time? I fear that we shall soon find that we are obliged to turn to these Special Drawing Rights and draw on them up to the hilt in order to sustain this illusion; and when the Drawing Rights have all been taken up, we shall find ourselves


with the old problem of how to find enough capital to subsidise the current account.
I have voiced my doubts. I do not want to seem curmudgeonly in my attitude to what I know is being greeted everywhere as a tremendous advance in international co-operation; but I wanted to voice those doubts, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Sheldon: I agree with one observation of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), that it is a licence to print money. But I have no objection to that, because I see the position of gold as obviously in decline. In the very nature of things, we must accept that it will decline, and we need to be prepared for that.
What has concerned me for some time has been the excessive concentration on Special Drawing Rights to the exclusion of other matters to which the I.M.F., could well have devoted some of the large energies which it has put into the creation of Special Drawing Rights. In particular, it has always struck me over the past few years—I have said it again and again—that the real problem of the International Monetary Fund has not been the question of liquidity. Liquidity can be increased in many ways. The growing use of international credits is one such way in which effective liquidity has been increased many times. The swap arrangements can rapidly increase liquidity to whatever may be required, as can the way that trade is financed nowadays, being done so much by letter of credit and long-term credits between manufacturers and importers.
We have had a great effective increase in credit, and I do not think that we could ever see a situation in which international trade would go into decline as a result of limited liquidity. I just do not envisage that. Nevertheless, because of its importance in connection with the declining use of gold, I have always welcomed the Special Drawing Rights arrangement. The great pity, as I have seen it, about the whole of these discussions is that the crucial international problems of the time were not faced because the I.M.F. and all those negotiating with and on behalf of Governments were concentrating on this to the exclu-

sion of the exchange rate variation, which is the great international financial problem now.
We have run into the problem of exchange rate variation, a problem not only of the present but one which will grow in importance because of the varying incidence of inflation as between one country and another. This is something which Governments cannot control. They can influence it in some sort of way, but they cannot control it. There are those countries which will find themselves faced with large levels of inflation, countries like Japan and South America, and there are others which will obtain rather greater control over their inflation, countries like Switzerland and Germany. Faced with this situation there will be a need for constant revaluation between one currency and another without the kind of upheavals we have seen in recent years. This was the great problem confronting the I.M.F., and the great tragedy was that it did not deal with it as the problem was evolving.
I am in favour of greater liquidity. One of the enormous advantages we have had in the post-war years has been the acceptance of the United States' deficit. This has been of great value, perhaps not so much now as it was in the 1950s, when there was still a fear of recessions, which has now been very largely banished. The fact that countries have held very large levels of dollars has been one of the most encouraging features or our time. I do not care whether the money is ever repaid. That is a very small matter by comparison with the absolute importance of the rôle of the dollar and the way it has been able to finance the enormous expansion of trade in the 1950s. The situation today is rather different. We should pay tribute to the way in which American economic policy did so much for the whole world.
I understand the great difficulty of the Minister of State in giving the details of the negotiations fixing the quota for Britain, but was it the Government's intention to go for the highest quota? I fully accept that we have the second highest quota in the I.M.F. Nevertheless, our percentage increase of that quota was much less than the increase in the quota of other major industrial countries. Was this accepted readily, or was it fought over?

Dr. John Gilbert: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) discussed the possibility of increasing international liquidity by a method which I gather technicians normally described as the "wider band" approach—in other words, having a 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. spread between parties rather than the 1 per cent.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for permitting me to intervene so early in his speech to clarify what I said. There has been a misunderstanding. The system which I favour is what I think is known as "managed rates", whereby an orderly market is maintained by the intervention of monetary authorities, exchange equalisation accounts or what you will, but the actual events taking place in the trading countries ultimately decide what the rate of exchange is to be. I do not want a system of crawling pegs, because it seems to me to be an artificial system. I do not want fixed bands, because very soon the rate would be at one extreme or the other and we should be back with fixed rates.
The ideal would be something like the old gilt-edged market, where the authorities held the market at an extremely predictable and stable level but pressures of interest rates and other things made themselves felt over the passage of time.

Dr. Gilbert: I apologise for misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he is not one of the wider band theorists, because I have never believed that that would produce any satisfactory solution when there is a fundamental disequilibrium. While I am a crawling peg enthusiast myself, I do not hope to carry the hon. Gentleman with me at this stage. I see that his proposals have considerable advantages over the present system of fixed rates that can be changed very infrequently and then only in times of crisis and with great difficulty.
Was the size of the increase in our quota contained in the Bill determined in isolation? That is, were our representatives negotiating for an increase in the quota without consideration of the possibility of other types of increase in global liquidity at the same time.
Are the Government bearing in mind other methods of increasing global liquidity or of reducing the need for keeping the same volume of reserves as a

ratio of total world trade, which may be other possibilities? If the Government have in mind either possibility, which would they prefer?
On Second Reading I mentioned the imaginative proposals recently made by the U.S. Executive Director of the Fund. He was not taking a final position on any of the proposals, but he put forward three for consideration at the next meeting of the Fund. I should appreciate it if the Minister of State could give some indication of the Government's attitude to each of the three.
I am sure that I need not remind the hon. Gentleman of what they were, but one was the wider band proposal, one was the possibility of having freely floating rates for fixed and limited periods, and the third was some variant of the crawling peg. If the Minister cannot give an indication yet which type of proposal the Government would be prepared to support, can he assure us at least that the Government would support full discussion of the proposals themselves? They are extremely important and imaginative and I for one am grateful that the United States, as the world's leading economic Power, is taking the trouble and the initiative to come forward at this time.
I should be particularly concerned if there were any truth in the Press reports that our position may be inhibited by the negotiations now under way in connection with our possible entry into the Common Market. There have been suggestions that we might not take as imaginative a position as we should like for fear of offending the French. This may be untrue—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is straying from the Clause; there is nothing in the Clause about the Common Market.

Mr. William Rodgers: With respect, Sir Robert, I think that my hon. Friend is talking about something which is central to our discussion. The whole question of wider bands and floating rates and crawling pegs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), has grave implications for the Bill. I do not think that my hon. Friend is exceeding the bounds of order by talking about the implications of our entry into the Common Market. With the


greatest respect, if you feel that my hon. Friend is out of order, it would be helpful if you would spell out why you take that view.

The Chairman: We are discussing Clause 1, which is the important part of the Bill, but to the terms of which we should adhere as far as possible. If one is not careful, with this sort of Clause it is easy to stray beyond the terms of the Clause. I have not been immensely strict about it, but we must have some regard to that. I wished to safeguard the Committee from a long discussion which might enter into matters concerned with the Common Market and outside the Clause.

Mr. Rodgers: With respect to you, Sir Robert, and without wishing to intrude on the valuable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), may I observe that you bore with the hon. Member for Kensington, South while he made his interesting remarks on the subject of the crawling peg. Although the debate may have been prolonged beyond what was expected, the subject of our entry into the Common Market raises central questions of the floating rate in particular. I hope that you will allow my hon. Friend reasonable discretion on this central economic question.

The Chairman: Provided that the hon. Member does not go into the terms of the Common Market and questions of that kind and keeps to the subject of Clause 1, he will be in order.

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) for his assistance and to you, Sir Robert, for your guidance. I assure you that I was not discussing the Common Market as such, but the Common Market that is relevant to this subject.
As hon. Members know, there is a move in the Common Market, which is not unanimous, to fix parities irrevocably for the future. There is some suggestion that the fixing of internal parities would reduce our own opportunity to move towards a more flexible system of exchange rates. That is not a view I share, because basically I do not think that there is anything inconsistent between setting up a fixed parity system within

a trading bloc and having the external rate of that bloc able to move much more freely than at present as against other currencies. That is the only point I make.
10.45 p.m.
I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) particularly with reference to the United States deficit and the fact that we seem to be moving further away from the tyranny of gold. I do not know whether it is in order to suggest that our negotiators might, when they talk about these imaginative American proposals for the Fund, suggest that the Americans might be even more imaginative still, because they are the only people to do it in the last resort. There is nothing I would like to see more than a further step towards demonetisation of gold. This is something that might be suggested to the American authorities. This is a good Bill as far as it goes. It makes a good contribution to international liquidity.
I hope that future steps will be in the direction not of these rather mechanistic, arbitrary increases but towards a system that will make further applications of this sort less necessary. In other words I hope that we can move towards a system where exchange rates adjust themselves much more smoothly, when we do not have to wait for periods of fundamental disequilibrium to arise and then have to deal with crises, and where we can have a situation where the ratios of reserves to world trade are no longer limiting factors to national economic growth.

Mr. John Biffen: We are entitled to ask why in this Bill we are authorising the payment of a further increase of 360 million dollars in United Kingdom subscriptions because there must have been some p hilosophy behind that action. It must inevitably be related to the discussion which has gone on for some time now as to how we might better order the settlement of international debt. That cannot conceivably be isolated from the consideration of various alternatives which have been widely discussed, such as crawling pegs, gliding parities or floating rates, for which I feel some attraction and for which I understand the Home Secretary felt some attraction. I hope


that my hon. Friend in replying to the debate will help the Committee a little.
It may be late but this is an issue of tremendous importance for the future economic management of this country and for its relations with those European countries with which we are now conducting negotiations, and by implication, how we would like all such European countries to proceed in relation to the "third world". All that flows directly from Clause 1 because it is inconceivable that in taking the decision that the Government have on Clause 1 they did not take a view on any of these issues.
We know that it is monstrously unfair to ask a Government to give some thinking aloud on matters of parity changes. The whole of recent history demonstrates that it is quite unreasonable to make that demand and no one can but have immense sympathy for any Government which find themselves obliged to change these, often under immensely disadvantageous circumstances. That does not preclude hon. Members making their views known, hoping that by doing so they will help create a climate of opinion in which government can operate. We owe it to ourselves as a responsible House seeking to participate in these decisions to make such sentiments known.
Therefore, when my right hon. Friend tells us more of the Govenment's thinking on Clause 1, I hope that he will give us some inkling that the Government bring to this subject, as to so many others, two characteristics. The first is that they will not be browbeaten by what they understand to be international understandings and commitments. There come times when I believe we have to decide what is in British national interests, and the whole question of international monetary arrangements seems to me now to be dominated by the American decision that they will not alter the exchange rate of the dollar. If this is true, an alteration in the exchange rate of other countries will probably have to take into account the fact that the dollar seems to be in fundamental disequilibrium and overvalued.
In recent weeks, the Canadians, when confronted with a decision to alter the exchange rate, decided to float. This is

significant and it is directly related to Clause 1. If the Clause really embodies a decision to make do or mend with the existing system of fixed exchange rates, there will be widespread regret, but if it is buying time during which we can move towards a more orderly system of international monetary settlement, we shall be pleased.
Second, I hope that the Government will bring to this problem a preparedness to consider economic affairs and economic management in the spirit of economic liberalisation. I make no apology for that slightly ideological approach. After all, that is one reason why we have divisions in the House. I hope that the consideration of producing a freer economic climate in this country will include a consideration of the central issue of fixed exchange rates. That must inevitably lie behind the purpose and the intention of Clause 1.
Therefore, I hope that, within the disciplines of prudence and order, my hon. Friend will hold out some comfort and guidance to those of us who hope that the rôle of sterling, with the fixed exchange rate rôle of sterling, may have less detrimental consequences upon the economic management of this country in future than it certainly has had in the recent past.

Mr. Higgins: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that the House should be able to express its views on matters like this, and I am glad that we have been able to do so this evening. As he says, there are some problems over the rules of order but the debate has been fairly wide, and I will try to reply to all the points.
My hon. Friend asked whether this was a question of make do and mend, or whether more financial changes are to be made. We should see the Bill as a further step in a steady progression towards better ordering of our international monetary affairs. The increase in quotas which we are considering tonight should be seen in that light. One cannot entirely disentangle the two major strands of international affairs—the adjustment problem, concerned with the relative parities of different countries' currencies, and the liquidity problem, concerned with the general level of international liquidity.
There is a relationship between these two, but for the purposes of this debate we should be right to concentrate on the second point, because that is fundamentally what the Bill is designed to do. It is a Measure to increase international liquidity. Therefore, it is not a question of making do and mending; it is a question of taking a measure that is prudent and, in our view, necessary, given the existing state of the world in respect of broader questions that might be raised. Clearly, if there is in future a change in these we should need to consider the overall position again, but the situation must be looked at dynamically, and I am happy to say that we are looking at it against a steady increase in the rate of world trade—and a recent very substantial increase.
That brings me to my hon. Friend's final point, concerned with taking a liberal attitude in these matters. He and I, over the years, have discussed these matters on many occasions. The important consideration to be borne in mind is the one that was also referred to by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), namely, what should the increase in international liquidity be on any given occasion, given the fact that world trade is increasing?
There is no clear objective measure by which one can judge such a matter, but I should like to quote for a moment what the Managing Director of the I.M.F. said when the allocation of S.D.R.s was considered; namely, that he thought that
more weight should be laid on the evidence for current inadequacy of reserves and reserve growth provided by the prevalence and growth of restrictions on international transactions and by the increasing resort to arrangements for balance of payments financing than on the evidence for adequate or excessive reserves provided by the current demand situation".
If I understand that correctly, he was saying that in deciding whether international liquidity is adequate we have to take into account not only the growth in world trade and the needs of financing it but what one might think of as a symptom of inadequacy; namely, that nation States find it necessary to impose restrictions of one kind and another on international trade.
This is something that hon. Members on both sides would deplore, and nothing perhaps, is more likely to affect the United Kingdom adversely than if we

find ourselves in a position where world liquidity is inadequate and countries are imposing restrictions on international trade—and there is always a tendency towards restrictionism and protectionism if such a situation exists.
I now turn to the points made by other hon. Members, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams). He raised the question of parities. I was invited by the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) to express views on the whole range of various ways in which changes in international parities might be facilitated. If I were to do that we might be here for a long time. I do not profess to be the only hon. Member with views on that subject, but if pushed I could perhaps speak for three hours without trouble. I am not sure that I am prepared to do that.
But it is right to stress that in this field the I.M.F. board is considering improvements which might be made in the present exchange rate system, and views have been reported in the Press recently spelling out three of the possible alternatives. In this connection it is right that negotiations must continue, but they must be on the basis of mutual consultation. I do not think the time for final decisions in this area has yet arrived.
It is true that in these matters one would like to go faster and faster. It was certainly true on the question of Special Drawing Rights. But we are continuing to negotiate; we have been making fairly reasonable progress in international finance lately, and I would hope we shall continue to do so in the future. But I do not think that on this Bill I should go into great detail in discussing all the individual possibilities.
On this point I would like to assure the Committee, since I was asked, that we will ensure that these matters are adequately discussed. That is certainly our view, and we accept that it is necessary.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I fully understand the reluctance of the hon. Gentleman to spend a great deal of time discussing this issue, but I think some of us would be ready to be patient if he were prepared to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) asked him three precise questions; namely, his attitude to the wider bands, to floating


rates, and to the crawling peg. While one would not expect the hon. Gentleman this evening to pronounce finally the view of the Government on all these matters, it is perfectly reasonable for him to discuss for some while the options open to the Government in future in these areas.

Mr. Higgins: There are, clearly, options and they are being discussed in the various forums which are available to us, but it would be premature for me to express an opinion here, coming down in favour of this or that proposal. We are certainly in favour of improvements if they can be negotiated on an international basis, but I do not think it would be right of me on this Bill to pronounce positively in favour of one measure rather than another.

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely see that, but would the hon. Gentleman indicate in which direction he feels it would be desirable for us to move? Obviously, the outcome we cannot at the moment judge and I am not taking any dogmatic view, but surely, in view of the very thoughtful contributions by his hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), he owes it to the House—I think he does—to indicate the direction in which his own mind is working and to have a little thinking aloud for a change?

Mr. Higgins: No. I would not feel that proper. To start with, as I say, I am not clear—

Mr. Rodgers: Why?

Mr. Higgins: For the simple reason I was asked, are we going on—

Mr. Rodgers: No.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Rodgers: Mr. Rodgers rose—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he must not interject from a seated position. If he wishes to interject he must first see that the hon. Member who has the Floor gives way to him. Otherwise he will please keep silent.

Mr. Rodgers: On a point of order, with the greatest respect I was not seeking in any way to be discourteous to the

hon. Gentleman, but as you will very fully appreciate, Sir Robert, if he—unwittingly—misrepresents what I said it is perfectly reasonable that I should seek to correct him and enable him to answer the question I put?

The Chairman: That may be so, but there are parliamentary ways of doing it and unparliamentary ways of doing it.

Mr. Higgins: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I would never wish to misrepresent him in any way whatever. We have debated at far later hours than this, and for very long, for me to wish to do any such thing.
The point I was about to make was that he asked me where we were going, in which direction were we going. There are in the whole field of international finance a great many possible courses open to us. The important thing is, that they should be fully debated in all the places where these matters are considered, and not least in the House, and we should then decide whether it is possible to make progress on the basis of negotiations.
But I think the time premature for me, on this Bill, to express a clear view, when the matter is under consideration by the I.M.F. board, and when various points, which are well known, are being considered. The academic arguments on this matter have been proceeding now for many years. I have always greatly enjoyed discussing them, but this is not the moment when we can give clear indications on this, and I think that on this Bill it would be wrong to concentrate on this point—I know hon. Gentlemen's passionate interest in the international adjustment process—when the Bill itself is concerned with the liquidity problem.
I want to turn, if I may, because the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne sought to raise this with me, to the question of the actual size of the quotas and their distribution. I return to the point I made when he originally raised the matter with me. The executive director's report explains that, in addition to considering the adjustment of the size of the Fund relative to the growth of the world economy, a quota review also offers the opportunity of adjusting the relative size of the quotas of individual members. The level of the increase and


the pattern of distribution are partly a matter for international agreement and partly a matter for negotiation.
I hesitate to use the expression in an international monetary context, but there is inevitably in these matters a certain amount of horse-trading and on this occasion the process was complicated by various cross-currents of interests and opinion, not least the one which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South, that there might be a problem arising here where inflationary pressures would be encouraged. I do not take the view for one moment that this Bill is likely to create such a situation. Given the level of increase in world trade, and given the restrictions upon it which are clearly apparent, I think this is not so.
One of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South might have been relevant in the S.D.R. debate in 1968. I think he spoke on that occasion. That Measure was concerned with unconditional liquidity. This Measure is concerned with an increase in conditional liquidity. Conditional liquidity means that if a member draws on its quota beyond a certain point it is subject to conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the various provisions, with which the House will be familiar, for an I.M.F. inquiry into the state of the domestic economy.
If because of inflationary pressures a particular country finds its balance of payments deteriorating and needs to draw on its quotas, it is likely that the Fund will have an interest in this, and the Fund will have a particular interest in countries not allowing inflationary pressures to run rampant. Therefore, given that it is conditional rather than unconditional liquidity which is being increased, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South need be concerned about that point.
I have already dealt with the point which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had in mind on the share of the quotas. It is a question of looking at a general increase and then special increases for those members which have qualified under changes in economic circumstances, in particular the growth in their national economies. The United Kingdom in recent years has not shown a very rapid rate of economic growth, and

therefore its claim upon the increase in the quotas was correspondingly reduced. On the other hand, there was a scaling down of the results in the interest of keeping the total down, given the claims of the countries which had grown at a rapid rate and the less developed countries. The figures that have been arrived at by negotiation are reasonable, both in absolute terms and in the relative allocation of the quotas between the countries.

Dr. Gilbert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for so courteously giving way so often. There was a fourth question which I put to him, in addition to the three repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers). Was the global increase determined in isolation on our submissions of what should be the size, as though that was enough in itself, or was it negotiated bearing in mind the possibility that we will get further increases in international liquidity? In addition to what my hon. Friend for Stockton-onTees has said, may I remind that hon. Gentleman that, although he may not yet have made up his mind which of the three American proposals, or any other proposals, he wishes to support, he has only about three months in which to decide before the meeting of the Fund, and it is surprising that he does not have a view on this subject.

Mr. Higgins: I have already expressed my views on the hon. Gentleman's second point. We must look at it dynamically in the course of international negotiations. Taking the whole run of events, we have made considerable progress. But it takes time, and inevitably hon. Members on both sides are likely to become impatient.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, of course this matter was considered in the broad context of increases in international liquidity. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said at the outset that this was, in some way, complementary to the increase in S.D.Rs which came into operation at the turn of the year.
This is a matter which we must look at both in the long-term and in the full context of the international liquidity position. That being so, it is a matter which should have wholehearted support, and I hope that the House will give it. But it is a subject which we too rarely have an opportunity to debate.
In reply to the debate on this Clause, I hope that I have covered the points which have been raised and that the House will now give its approval.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

AMENDMENT OF 1962 c. 20

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Higgins: I will not delay the House on this Clause more than a few moments, but perhaps it is right to say a word or two about it. It is much longer in words than Clause 1, but rather less significant.
United Kingdom participation in the General Agreement to Borrow was authorised in the International Monetary Fund Act, 1962. It transpires that a technical Amendment to the Act is necessary. It provides for any sums which we might lend to come from the Consolidated Fund. This outmoded reference to the Consolidated Fund was not picked up in the National Loans Fund Act, 1968, but the deficiency will be corrected if the present Bill becomes law.
This is for the present a wholly technical matter. While we remain indebted to the Fund, we shall not be called upon to lend currencies under the General Agreement to Borrow. But I hope that the House will agree that it was appropriate to take this opportunity to amend the 1962 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION (HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Clause 1

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

11.15 p.m.

Sir David Renton: My interest in this Clause is due to the fact that I am the father of a mentally handicapped child; namely, the youngest of our three daughters. I am glad to say that she is receiving wonderful care, and even some attempt at education, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
I hope I am not being too personal when I say that, to my mind, that qualifies him as being a person eminently suitable to pilot this Bill through the House and to implement it adequately afterwards, for I know what a tremendous interest he has taken in the voluntary foundation where my daughter is being cared for.
I welcomed the statement made by my hon. Friend on Second Reading to the effect that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is putting in hand further consultations with all concerned so that a more rational—indeed, I should have thought a more fair—attitude could be evolved about the desirability of fixing a shorter period of post-diploma training for those who take the course for the training of mentally handicapped children.
There is no doubt that when the Clause is implemented the training of such teachers will become even more important than it has been in the past. Can my hon. Friend give an estimate of the increase in the number of qualified teachers of the mentally handicapped who will be required?
This question of the total numbers required is exceedingly relevant to post-diploma experience—indeed, to pre-diploma experience, too—which will be a condition of qualified teacher status.


Frankly, if the conditions are made too tough, we shall not get the qualified teachers. If those who have already gained several years' experience in this field, which is a very difficult one, will not be given the opportunity of having that status recognised when they have passed the teacher training course, then those who might be forthcoming will not be forthcoming. Without wearying the Committee with too much detail, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that a sympathetic attitude is taken towards this part of the problem.
The National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, in which I play some part at the centre, has suggested, for example, that candidates for teacher training colleges for the special course, which will be required, who have held over three years' experience in training centres under the present set-up, prior to the taking of the diploma, should be required to serve certainly not more than two years after completing the diploma course in order to acquire qualified teacher status. That is just one suggestion. I will write to my hon. Friend with others, rather than weary the Committee with further detail on this point, though it is vitally important.
There are several other matters which, when the Clause comes to be implemented, give rise to concern and about which we must ask for assurances. First, my hon. Friend said on Second Reading that of the 28,000 children who will be affected by the Bill, about 6,000 are at present being cared for in hospitals. Thus, the new responsibility for educating those children, which has passed to the Department of Education, will extend into those hospitals. I understand that some of these hospitals have, if not provided with schools of their own for training such children, some kind of educational arrangements, but what is very important is that all of these 6,000 children should, according to their capacities, be taught—and even those with a very low I.Q. can be taught something.
It is most remarkable, as I explained to the House on another occasion several years ago, that those with the very lowest I.Q. can frequently be taught something which will enable them to lead a fuller, and even a slightly more independent, life. Therefore, those hospitals, whether or not they have schools of their own,

should be served by qualified teachers in future. I hope that we may receive an assurance from my hon. Friend that none of those 6,000 children will be regarded as being utterly beyond the scope of the Clause.
Let me say a word or two about the grievously retarded children coming into the category of what are generally called "special care" cases, because for that category also we should ask for assurances. These children are a great challenge to educationists. Experimental work is going on throughout the world in respect of children with very low I.Q., many of whom, like my daughter, have severe physical handicaps as well. But the valuable experimental work that is being done on such cases both in this country and elsewhere will be very largely wasted if we draw the line in such a way as to provide that at a certain level of I.Q. there is nothing that can be done, and that, therefore, a number of children must be ruled out completely as being beyond the hope of any kind of educational facility.
If we make a demarcation of that kind, and there are rumours that in Whitehall such a demarcation line is being worked out—I hope that those rumours are not well founded—we shall be making a nonsense of the experimental work that is going on, and we shall be wasting the opportunities provided by the Bill. If one referred to the debate initiated some years ago by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), one would say that the very careful preparatory work done over a very long period before the Bill saw the light of day will largely have been wasted.
The work done by the voluntary societies, such as the society in my hon. Friend's constituency, can be of great help to the State. These voluntary societies are doing valuable work, some of it experimental, and some of it involving the training of teachers of the mentally handicapped. Mostly, they depend upon private funds, but I hope that as economic conditions improve our Government will consider the possibility of giving increasing financial help to such voluntary societies.
My principal reason for saying so is that it is essential that there should be a certain amount of pride and competition


in making experiments which need to be made in this field. It would be wrong for the Department of Education and Science, however much its heart is in the matter, to have something near a monopoly in the developments which must take place. Therefore, I think these voluntary foundations worth encouraging, but there is a further reason. The voluntary foundations are prepared to do these things on a relatively small scale. From my knowledge and experience of the work which others are doing in helping mentally handicapped children, I should say that the lower the I.Q. children have the smaller should the scale be on which the work is done. Therefore, these voluntary foundations are playing a very valuable part. They should be encouraged, and they should be encouraged financially increasingly as circumstances permit.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: It is always a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on this subject. I have had that privilege on other Bills, on other occasions and in other debates. He brings a wealth not only of personal experience but of knowledge to the subject, and I commend to the Under-Secretary what he has said.
The practical problems in implementing this Clause concerning training teachers are matters with which the Under-Secretary will be very much concerned when the Bill becomes law. There will be a tremendous problem in making the adaptation and adjustment from the present position. At present 67 per cent. of those teaching mentally handicapped children are entirely without qualification. On the other hand, within that body there will be a large body of practical and personal experience. It would be sad if that went untapped. Therefore, in making arrangements for the implementation of this Clause in regard to training a considerable amount of adjustment will be needed, and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be too rigid but to bring flexibility into the operation.
I commend the comment about what has become an almost impassable barrier, the 50 to 55 I.Q. This has been written in for so long and we have reached so much sophistication in the last few years that it is hoped that this Clause will lead

to more flexibility about what is educable and what is ineducable for this category. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at the answer he gave to a question I asked on Second Reading when we were concerned about the implications of this Clause in limiting his responsibility about ages once we removed this category from the Department of Health and Social Security. We received the assurance that the ages stretched from 2 to 19.
11.30 p.m.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at that upper limit of 19, because it is too low. There is a whole period in the ages of 14 upward where to say that the responsibility of the Department of Education should stop at 19 is in many cases almost impossible to follow through.
Most of my commtnts are concerned with the interpretation of this Clause in a flexible rather than an inflexible way. I commend the final comments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I had the privilege recently of going with the National Society for the Mentally Handicapped to look at what is being done in Denmark. The Under-Secretary is about to embark upon the long Summer Recess. As part of the furtherance of the Bill that he is successfully piloting through the House of Commons, I recommend that he spends a little time looking at what Denmark has been able to do—with a much smaller population, it is true, but with a much greater per capita allocation—and the way in which she is prepared to operate extremely small units for teaching purposes and does not stand firm on having so many children per teacher.
On the fringe side of his responsibility for educating the mentally handicapped, I recommend that the Under-Secretary takes note of the way use is made of training teachers in other specialties: the teachers come in for short periods and are able to gain experience which does not qualify them to teach the mentally handicapped but which is of tremendous value to them when they come to deal with ordinary children.
If the Under-Secretary can find the time, I commend the Scandinavian work in this respect to his attention. It is different from ours. We can show comparable things in many fields, but some


of the work the Scandinavians are doing on matters covered by the Clause is an advance on what we are doing.
As functions are now being transferred from one Department to another, this is the opportune time to compare what is being done here with what is being done in enlightened places elsewhere.
I hope that the Clause will stand part. We commended it on Second Reading. I wish the Under-Secretary well in the very practical difficulties he will encounter in doing what is an extremely good thing under the Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Subsection (2,c) speaks of
the transfer to local education authorities of property, rights and liabilities of local health authorities
and so on. This is probably fairly simple in most parts of the country where education authorities and health authorities are one and the same. However, in Inner London there are two separate authorities. What provision is contemplated for assessing the value of property of local health authorities which have to pass their property over to local education authorities?

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I want to put on record, and invite my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider, some anxieties which have been expressed to me by parents. The fact that there will now be no departmental separation of responsibility for what I call Section 57 children and children who are already within the field of education and who are educationally subnormal does not alter the position that these two broad categories of children will continue to need separate educational treatment.
Anxiety has been expressed to me by some parents of children who would be classified, and are still classified, as educationally subnormal, and who therefore are due to go to either special schools or special classes, that a local education authority might through administrative convenience allocate such a child to a junior training centre if there were room, so that that child might get less suitable educational provision as a result of the same authority having all children under its care.
This is no more than an anxiety that has been put to me. I am sure that any education authority would take the greatest care to maintain in practice appropriate educational treatment. None the less, it may follow that a special school is simply not available.
All I ask my hon. Friend to consider is whether this point might be watched, and, further, that there should be—if there is not already—adequate appeal machinery so that a parent who thought that his child was wrongly allocated should have the ordinary rights of appeal.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I am much obliged to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides for the kindly welcome they have given to the Clause in principle. None of us need apologise, even at a late hour, for having taken time to look closely at what is conceded on both sides to be a most important matter. I shall do my best to answer the detailed points which have been so carefully raised.
I have taken careful note of the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on the subject of the appropriate length of post-diploma service. With his long experience in Government behind him, he will appreciate that when my right hon. Friend starts—as I announced on Monday she has—a process of consultation, it would be discourteous, to say the least, to the distinguished bodies with which she is consulting if I were to make any kind of pronouncement today on the length which she has in mind or which she may have suggested to them. He will understand that since there are consultations in progress it would not be appropriate for me to go further than that. However, having read our Second Reading debate—we all understood his absence on that occasion, though we regretted it—my right hon. and learned Friend will have seen the direction in which my right hon. Friend's mind is moving.
I warmly support what my right hon. and learned Friend was kind enough to say, in such felicitous terms, about the voluntary bodies and societies. There are a number at work. He himself has a most distinguished connection with


more than one of them. He drew attention to the remarkably fine work of the voluntary association within my constituency, of which he has personal knowledge. Again, with his long experience, my right hon. and learned Friend will understand that a junior Minister, within a fortnight of appointment, has at least learned that, however tempted, he must not give promises of financial support. Clearly that is not within my competence tonight, and my right hon. and learned Friend was careful to make plain that he had in mind the future rather than the present.
I can say emphatically that there is no disposition in the Department that I have discovered to want, as it were, to empire-build and to exclude voluntary bodies. I have not the smallest disposition in that way, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend knows me well enough to understand that such an attitude would not have the slightest encouragement from me. Quite the reverse.
I am disturbed that my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) should feel that there is some inclination to draw an I.Q. line. I am grateful to them both for drawing the matter to my attention. I can say categorically that there is no intention that I have ascertained in the Department—or the Departments, though in education terms I speak of the Department—to draw any lower level of I.Q. for this purpose. I give that assurance, but I shall watch the matter closely now that I have had it brought to my attention.
My right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that henceforth, if the House wishes, as I trust it will, it will be an education judgment which is brought to bear. There will always have to be a judgment. There has to be a judgment at present, and, as we said on Second Reading, it is often a difficult judgment to make. However hard we try to make educational provision available which is the intention, there may be a certain very small number for whom on educational grounds—and it will be an educational system—meaningful educational provision cannot effectively be made. But it would be quite wrong to settle beforehand an I.Q. base below which we should not make genuine educational efforts. I

hope that this clears the matter. I am deeply obliged that it has been raised. It has enabled me to deal with it in public. I give a clear assurance that I shall watch it most closely.
I have for about 20 years been on the receiving end of googly questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), and today is no exception. I think that the right answer to his question is that the transfer of the properties, which is a very limited number, is done on the basis of an independent valuation by the district valuer, who I would expect, with two branches of Government of this kind, would enter into discussions with both. I believe that to be the accurate description of what happens but if I find that I have misled my hon. Friend on that narrow, but perfectly fair, technical point I shall at once write to him and put myself right.
Like a number of other hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has always taken a great interest in these matters. I follow clearly the point he raised, which could arise, and I am obliged to him for drawing it to my attention. The whole ethos of the Clause is not downwards but precisely in the other direction. If the situation he put to us so movingly were in any sense widespread, or if there were an individual case causing him trouble, the parents of the children concerned would, I understand, now that it is the educational rules that apply, have the same rights to appeal to my right hon. Friend as the parents of any other child going to a school. I hope that my hon. Friend may feel that that goes a long way to clear his point.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West and other hon. Members wisely pointed out that if the Clause is to be a success—and it brings great problems in its train—an immense fund of goodwill towards it and an immense impetus behind it are necessary.
In many sectors of the education policies of successive Governments there is no party political controversy, and this is clearly one of them. If I am for any length of time to have some responsibility in this matter, I would want to try to build up the largest possible number of hon. Members on both sides who can assist in forwarding the purposes of the


Bill. I am not in the least concerned about their political affiliations in recruiting for that core of support. I like to feel that that is the appropriate way to move forward in something that we all regard as very important.

Sir D. Renton: The Committee is very obliged to my hon. Friend for his very helpful and constructive reply. However, there was just one point which I raised which he did not deal with and which is important.
Could he tell us what is to happen about the 6,000 children in hospitals, many of whom will inevitably remain in them? What is to be done about their education when the Bill is implemented?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Provision for their educational future becomes a matter for my right hon. Friend. As my right hon. and learned Friend realises, responsibility for their medical care remains a matter for the Department of Health and Social Security. This is a division about which we are clear. After 1st April responsibility for the education of children in hospital will become the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Pavitt: In matters of health and welfare and care, it has always been my experience that hon. Members from both sides of the Committee contribute. Will the hon. Member reply to my question about the ages 2 to 19? Will he clarify what he said on Second Reading?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I apologise to the hon. Member for missing that point. I shall look at the matter more closely, but I think that I am right to say that my right hon. Friend's present powers preclude her from going wider than the ages 2 to 19, although at both ends there is discretion as opposed to compulsory powers for the narrower limits of the compulsory school age.
I will gladly look at the matter, but the hon. Member will appreciate the problems of extending the Department's powers too widely, perhaps into those of another Department. I will certainly look sympathetically at the matter, but I think that the correct answer is that legislation would be required, and at present it is not envisaged.
The hon. Member referred to the research being done in Denmark. I should dearly like to feel that I may be permitted time off to go to Denmark, but the Patronage Secretary is looking at me with a rather beady eye and no doubt expects junior Ministers to work extremely hard. But it may be that the hon. Member's words will soften him a little.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Statutory Instrument, every Scheme or Amendment of a Scheme, requiring approval by Statutory Instrument, and every draft of such an Instrument, Scheme or Amendment, being an Instrument, Scheme, Amendment or Draft which is laid before the House and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in the House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, every other general Statutory Instrument, and every Order which is subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds:—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of an enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts either at all times or after the expiration of a specified period;
(iii) that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;
(iv) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;


(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(vi) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification to Mr. Speaker under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation;
(viii) that the drafting of it appears to be defective; and if they so determine, to report to that effect:

That Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Havers, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. David Waddington, and Mr. Walder be members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to report the Minutes of their Proceedings from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to require any Government Department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any Instrument or other Document which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such Instrument or other Document.

Ordered,
That three be the Quorum.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any Instrument or other Document the Committee do afford to any Government Department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing such explanations as the Department think fit.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memoranda submitted or other evidence given to the Committee by any Government Department in explanation of any Instrument or other Document.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any Instrument or other Document.—[Mr. Monro.]

EDUCATION (AUTISTIC CHILDREN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: It is right that the debate which I wish to initiate on the Adjournment should be separated from the debate which we have just concluded, although on the surface it may seem to be allied to it.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the problem of the education and health provisions that we are making for autistic children and make a plea for distinguishing between the autistic child on the one hand and the mentally handicapped child on the other. In this short debate I want to concentrate entirely on the problem of the autistic child.
Although the problem is comparatively small, in proportion, it is indicative of a wider problem relating to new and sophisticated diagnostic techniques. Whereas once upon a time we had very broad categories for the treatment of people who suffered from sickness of the mind or disabilities of the mind, we are now able to define far more accurately what is wrong. We are not dealing with one group. There are more than 100 different cases. In recent years we have been able to isolate and look at the techniques and provisions for teaching and incorporating the autistic child into the community. It is because there is a need for a furtherance of this that I raise this subject.
The first priority is that of diagnosis—to be able to ensure that we are establishing that a child is autistic and not mentally subnormal or suffering from some other disability. The problem of autism is one mainly of communication. The House will know that this is a subject about which I have personal experience. It was Helen Keller, who was blind and deaf, who pointed out that deafness was the most difficult to sustain because it cut off communication from one's fellow human beings.
What happens with autistic children is that the whole of their communication is jumbled and what could be and maybe


is an intelligent brain from the point of view of any other measurement, merely because of jumbled communication, becomes a problem of a special kind. The eyes and ears function normally and the I.Q. may be above average, but the messages from eyes and ears do not link up with the brain and so their picture of the outside world is distorted. Because of this the autistic child is withdrawn and unable to demonstrate any kind of affection. Being unable to express themselves, they often show their disturbed behaviour in a way which leads them to be diagnosed as being other than autistic. Instead, they are diagnosed as being mentally subnormal and find themselves in hospitals for such children where they are not able to compete for attention. They withdraw into themselves, often scratching their arms and faces until they bleed, because they have nothing better to do. Eventually the situation becomes extremely distressing. A recent spot check carried out by the National Society for Autistic Children showed that out of 460 children between the ages of 5 and 14, 60 were wrongly categorised and were in hospitals for the mentally subnormal. On a wider scale this shows that there are something like 667 autistic children in the wrong place.
It is because I hope that we might be able to do something for such children that I have initiated this debate, calling for co-ordination between Departments. This is why I mention the educational and health provisions for such children. I hope that we can do something to diagnose this condition successfully and make the right provisions for these children.
Secondly, there is the problem of how to teach these children. I disagree with the comments made in the previous debate by the Under-Secretary. He talked about meaningful education. I believe that he was thinking in stereotyped and orthodox terms. For autistic and subnormal children the degree of education is a question not just of being able to assimilate certain facts and put them out again but of how one co-ordinates and is incorporated into the community.
The hon. Gentleman gave me an answer on 9th July, when he replied to my Question about training:

There is no generally accepted professional training specifically for teaching autistic children, but a limited number of short courses have been provided including a 5-day course this month at Newcastle University for teachers, psychologists and speech therapists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 81.]
This is totally inadequate. If we are to tackle this problem of autistic children, there has to be specialised training—to us, highly specialised training—for the body of teachers to be able to deal with it.
Even in the present situation, for an estimated 5,000 autistic children there are only 250 school places. In other words, the vast majority have no educational provision whatsoever. It is estimated that there are about 5,000 autistic children between the ages of babies and 17. I pay a tribute to the very few special schools, especially the one in Ealing, which serves my own constituency, the London Borough of Brent, where my local medical officer of health does a tremendous job in association with the local authorities and the centre at Ealing.
I should also like the hon. Gentleman to look at the possibility of adding this category to the 1944 Education Act, if not by some amending legislation, perhaps by circular. We have discussed a number of circulars dealing with education in recent weeks. He will know that the list of categories include the blind, the partially sighted, the deaf, the partially deaf, the educationally subnormal, the paraplegic, the maladjusted, the physically handicapped, those suffering from speech defects, and the delicate. There is a need to designate autistic children, now that there is a clear definition of what such a child is. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the possibility of bringing these into the framework of our provisions.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing, who is present, told me, in answer to a Question on 6th July, that no reliable estimate has been made of the number of autistic children resident in subnormality hospitals, and went on:
Special 'autistic units' in hospitals are not generally favoured by psychiatrists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 6.]
This is a question of where the experts conflict. The psychiatrists, used to mental


subnormality but not necessarily to autistic children, are giving one set of advice, while the specialists with the National Society of Autistic Children and those concerned with education are giving another. I hope that there will be some co-ordination between the two Departments to get their expert advice sorted out.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will also look at the continuing provision for health and educational care in hospitals and for sheltered work at the end of the day when the strictly educational task for autistic children is finished. This is a continuing responsibility, which does not end when the child finishes with the particular Department. It remains a community responsibility.
I would make a plea that on both the educational side and on the health and welfare side there should be much greater co-ordination between the Departments. When I asked the Prime Minister if he would designate one Minister for this, he replied that he was not convinced that it would be helpful at this stage but that he would look into it. I hope that the two hon. Gentlemen will probe him to look into it further. It is ridiculous that in the last Government a Minister could move from Department to Department and still retain responsibility for sport when responsibility for things like autistic children and the disabled is just a small sector of one Department running over into at least 10 other Departments in terms of health and welfare. In particular, educational responsibility for the autistic child rests with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, but there will be a continuing responsibility—even partly educational—in the Department of Health and Social Security. It would therefore be helpful to have either one or the other as the overlord, in order to co-ordinate what is happening.
My last point is that although I am laying a charge for the various six priorities not only on the hon. Member but on the Government and the Department, I am afraid that it is a continuing responsibility of all of us. There is a need for a greater understanding of the problem by the community, for greater help for parents of autistic children, and for greater neighbourliness, so that

people can understand not only the problems of the parents of autistic children but what the hon. Member is trying to do, in order to co-operate in a voluntary fashion with what the Government can do on a statutory basis.
It is my hope that by initiating this debate we shall get some continuing action. There is a long time for the Government to think about this matter before we return after the Summer Recess. I shall be returning to the subject again from time to time until some of the things that I am demanding are implemented by the Government.

12.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I hope that the hon. Member noticed that there were two junior Ministers on the Government Front Bench to listen to what he had to say. I am deeply obliged to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security for giving me moral support on this occasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that both of us take very seriously the question that he has raised.
In preparing my mind for attempting to answer the hon. Gentleman I have been very impressed, when dealing with the officials of both Departments—because it has been necessary for me to do that—with the real sense of personal dedication to the problems of the handicapped that I have found in them. Officials sometimes necessarily sound a little distant, or seem a little distant, to the average person, but they are not when one is fortunate enough to have close contact with them. Being new in office I want to place that fact very firmly on the record. It has impressed me greatly.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the difficulties of these children and their parents, and of those who care for and teach them. The hon. Member mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has undertaken to look into the hon. Member's suggestion that one Minister should be designated to be responsible for the services at present extended to autistic children by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science. It is obviously very helpful, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is giving attention to


that suggestion, that the hon. Member should be kind enough to raise the points that he has.
As the hon. Member knows, psychiatric disorders in children have been known for many years, but the use of the term "autistic" to describe a particular group is very much more recent. I understand that the term is now widely used by professional workers, both in health and education, to describe children with a combination of disorders of behaviour, development and learning, whose disabilities cannot be attributed to obvious organic defects.
This group is so identified in terms of symptoms shown and not in terms of underlying causes. I know that the hon. Member understands that I lay claim to no professional knowledge in this subject, but at the same time there are some general aspects of autism in children that it might be helpful for me to state as clearly as I can.
First, there is a wide range of variation between one child and another in the severity of the symptoms and the relation of those symptoms to one another. Sometimes one of these is more conspicuous, and sometimes another. I understand, also, that the condition is thought to be brought about not by a single underlying cause but by a variety of such causes. There is a great range, also, in the tested intelligence of autistic children. They may, on the one hand, be to all intents and purposes normal or, on the other, extend to the lowest limits at which tests can effectively be made. A number of autistic children suffer, as we know, from additional handicaps. In short, the point I am making is that the group is not at all uniform, and individual autistic children have very different needs and a very different capacity for development.
In extreme cases—alas, they are not infrequent—an autistic child is practically unable to communicate with others, either by speaking or in other ways, or to demonstrate, as the hon. Gentleman said, the natural interest and affection which a child normally feels for his parents or his family and others who have earned his confidence and affection. It is this feature of autism which is so particularly distressing to the child's parents and so discouraging to those responsible for its care and education. Wherever a family

contains a handicapped child the child and the family have a need of particular health, educational and social welfare services. This is true whether the handicap is autism or whether it is some other form of handicap, and the questions arise of prevention, of medical treatment, of care, of cure or remediation, of special education, and advice and help for the parents. Tonight, I realise, we are concerned with educational and health problems, and I need only mention in passing—but I do mention—that there are also other problems of social welfare in these cases.
To deal first with the health side, autism, as the hon. Gentleman said, may be due to a variety of causes, among which are sensory defects, brain damage, or emotional disturbance. It follows from this that medical and psychological assessment is of paramount importance, and this is undertaken by the health services, generally in a hospital setting. Medical treatment, where this is appropriate, varies according to the nature of the condition, but in the present state of our knowledge, so I am advised, in many instances what is provided is rather in the nature of skilled care than in the nature of cure. A number of autistic children, in particular those with emotional disturbance, are found to benefit from phychiatric treatment in hospitals. Psychiatrists generally do not favour the provision of separate units in hospitals for autistic children, but there are units doing devoted work, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than I, at High Wick, St. Albans, and in the Smith Hospital at Henley-on-Thames.
As I said, the condition has only comparatively recently been recognised, and because of the variety of forms the syndrome may take and the variety of underlying causes, many of which remain obscure, we still have a great deal to learn about the nature of the condition, its diagnosis, prevalence and treatment, and psychiatrists, by working in the health service, have played, and are still playing, a most important part in a number of research projects.
Turning briefly to the educational side, local education authorities have a general duty to provide education according to a child's age, ability and aptitudes, and to identify, with medical advice, and to


provide for, those children who, as a result of handicap, need special education.
Autistic children, as I have said already, are a very heterogeneous group and local education authorities place them in a great variety of establishments and, I would have thought, rightly so. Some are in special schools for the educationally subnormal or the maladjusted; some are in units attached to special schools or to ordinary schools; and some are sent by the local education authorities, who pay their fees, to independent schools.
A number also are classified by local education authorities as "unsuitable for education", in the sense in which that term is at present used, and are either in the case of local health authorities in junior training centres or are placed in hospitals for the mentally handicapped. The education of autistic children will, we hope, as a result of the Bill to which we have just given a Third Reading, from next April become the responsibility of local education authorities.
Many autistic children are being educated at schools or other establishments under the responsibility of local education authorities. Exclusion from the educational services can take place only after elaborate medical and psychological examination, and parents have a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who gives very careful attention to any representations made to her. Nor would it be correct, as has sometimes been inferred, even when such children are classified as "unsuitable for education" to suggest that they are not receiving any education at all. I should like to make special reference to the devoted and expert work of the teachers of the mentally handicapped who will join the education services in April.
I noted the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the provision for handicapped children beyond the normal school-leaving age, which for children in special schools is 16. Local education authorities already have a duty to provide full-time education in school for any child up to the age of 19 whose parents wish him or her to continue at school,

and this point we dealt with a moment ago in the Bill. In addition, the further education provisions of the Education Acts apply to any handicapped children who are able to go on to take a course of further education using the normal facilities. I take the hon. Gentleman's point on anxiety about those over the age of 19, but he will know that the provision of further training and sheltered employment for handicapped adults is the responsibility of local health authorities and of the Department of Employment and Productivity. and those autistic children who reach adult life and have not achieved a sufficient degree of social and emotional adjustment to take a normal place in the community may be provided for in this way.
It has been borne in on me as I have sought over the years to interest myself in this problem that there is still much difference of opinion among those who are professionally responsible on the most effective form of education, and a research project financed jointly by my Department and the Gulbenkian Foundation has been under way since 1966 to make a comparative study of the progress made by children in three units in the London area catering in different ways for children with autistic symptoms. One unit is a day centre run by the National Society of Autistic Children—a society which has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—one is a day unit in a hospital and one is a residential unit. Results are expected in two years' time. Because of the variety in the educational needs of children suffering from autism, it is unlikely that any single educational régime will be shown to be the best for more than a small proportion of these children.
I should now sum up what I have already said, answering for two Departments, and look forward to the future. Autistic children are not a homogeneous group, and, because of the variety and complexity of the problems presented, we are still far from knowing with any certainly what are the best régimes either for the health or for the education of these children. What appears likely is that a wide variety of treatment is needed, and, within the limits of present knowledge, this is being provided.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and


for Social Services would not think it right to engage in any general development of expensive and highly specialised units. These could well prove less effective than the kind of flexible and varied provision already being developed. There is a great need for research and for the acquiring of practical experience. Research projects are being undertaken, and in due course their findings will be applied in practice.
A large number of autistic children now in the care of local health authorities and in hospitals will have responsibility for their education transferred to the local education authorities, though these will not extend over the medical care and nursing of the children. My right hon. Friends have no doubt that, as the local education authorities gain experience in their fresh responsibilities, these

children will benefit from the integration of the education services given to them within the education service as a whole. I can give the assurance to the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to press on with these developments, and I can assure the parents of these most grievously afflicted children of the very real concern of the Government for the plight in which they find themselves.
I hope that this setting out of the position as the two Departments see it may be, in the present state of our knowledge, of assistance to the hon. Gentleman and will show the care, thought and sympathy going into these difficulties from two Government Departments.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.